54rt5h6f2ag magzus.org

PRACTICAL GIFTING

GOLF CART MAT

CUPCOFFEE

Delight the avid driver or golfer

season with a practical

from

Golf Cart Mat helps instantly

off your list

or

Car

CupFone Duo is

for commuters and road

they’ll

every day they use it!

Rich Heritage Porsche

Sport Classic

The first-ever GR Corolla. 300 HP. GR-FOUR AWD. Manual only. Get behind the wheel of this wild child.

YOU ARE HERE

TWIN TURBO

Editorial Digital Director Erik Johnson

Executive Editor Mac Morrison @Mac_Morrison

Deputy Editor, Daily Content Alex Stoklosa

Daily Content Team Justin Banner, Andrew Beckford, Monica Gonderman, Alex Kierstein, Matt Rodriguez, Justin Westbrook

International Bureau Chief Angus MacKenzie @Angus_Mack

Senior Features Editor Jonny Lieberman @MT_Loverman

Detroit Editor Alisa Priddle @alisapriddle

Mexico Editor Miguel Cortina @CortinaMiguel

Features Editors Scott Evans @MT_Evans, Christian Seabaugh @C_Seabaugh

Editor-at-Large Edward Loh @EdLoh

Senior Editor Aaron Gold

Manager, Visual Assets Brian Vance Photography Asset Editor William Walker @MT_dubdub Associate Photographers Renz Dimaandal, Brandon Lim, Darren Martin

Managing Editor Rusty Kurtz

Senior Copy Editor Jesse Bishop @thejessebishop Copy Editor Claire Crowley

Technical

Technical Director Frank Markus @MT_Markus Testing Director Eric Tingwall @erictingwall Road Test Editor Chris Walton Associate Road Test Editor Erick Ayapana @Erkayapana Road Test Analyst Alan Lau

Art

Creative Director Alan J Muir Digital Design Manager Ryan Lugo Editorial Operations

Director of Editorial Operations Mike Floyd Buyer's Guide Director Zach Gale @ZachGale Buyer's Guide Team Duncan Brady, Bob Hernandez, Alex Leanse, Kelly Lin, Billy Rehbock Manager, Editorial Operations Phillip McRae Content Coordinators Ryan Ono, Robert Matt Taylor Senior Production Editor Ryan Whitehouse Production Editors Veronica Beltran, Sabrina Costa, Erika Pizano

Social Media Manager Carol Ngo

Contributors

Correspondents Jethro Bovingdon, Mike Connor, Randy Pobst, Derek Powell Photographers Wesley Allison, James Lipman, Kenny Nakajima, Al Norris, Steven Pham, Povi Pullinen, Amir Saidi, Jessica Walker Artists Avarvarii Illustration, Paul Laguette

MOTORTREND Studio

Head of MotorTrend Studio Mike Suggett VP, Development Gabriel VanHuss VP, External Production David Lee VP, Linear Programming Roger Henry Senior Director, Digital Programming Stephanie Vartanian VP, Studio Production and Operations Levi Rugg Director, External Production Josh Berkley Sr. Director, Executive Producer, Studio Brett Adkins Manager, Studio Development Bart Bidlingmeyer Manager, External Development Shaan Akbar

Executive Producer Sam Wackerle

We power ahead of

to be

longest

With more than 20 years of continual

the

others

Advertising

Detroit: 4327 Delemere Court, Royal Oak, MI 48073 Tel: (248) 594-5999

Bill Waldman

Los Angeles: 831 S. Douglas St., El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: (310) 531-9900

Chuck Miller, Matt Smith

New York: 1180 6th Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 915-4413

Ryan Bahoshy, Janet Catallo

Chicago: 180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 470-3441

Mason Alwan

Marketing Director

Shawn Higgins

Advertising Coordinator

Yvette Frost

MOTORTREND Group

President/General Manager

Alex Wellen

Group SVP, Sales

Eric Schwab

Head of Editorial

Edward Loh @EdLoh

VP, Ad Operations

Pauline Atwood

VP, Digital Media

Jason Rice

VP, Sales Auto Aftermarket

Matt Boice

SVP, Marketing

Ryan Payne

SVP, Content Strategy Aftermarket

David Freiburger

VP, Finance/Controller

Shilpa Joshi

VP, Social Media & Content Monetization

Megan Neal

VP, Experiential Marketing & Events

Karen Brown (Echavarria)

Director, Publishing Systems

Matthew Paige

Any submissions or contributions from readers shall be subject to and governed by Motor Trend Group, LLC User Content Submission

Terms and Conditions, which are posted at www.motortrendgroup.com/submissions/

Subscriptions

can’t keep up with.

Senior Producer Kristin Curtin Producers Jonny Closson, Josh Klug, Michelle Turczyn Production Manager Christine Dang Production Coordinator Kelli Quock Production Finance Manager Til Samaranayake Director Bradford Alicea

Design Director Mike Royer

Associate Creative Directors Larry Beimel, Jiro Ietaka

Senior Editor Clint Stringfellow Lead Assistant Editor Christian Taylor Assistant Editors Peter Grayson Jared Merback, Jonathan Velasques, Kevin Zhang Head of Post Production Jennifer Wynkoop Post Production Supervisor Natalie Lucaccini

Senior Post Production Producer Mary-Kate Fitzpatrick Post Production Producers Kelly Barnhardt, Jack Brennan, Haley Hudkins, Senior Manager, Linear Programming Al Schooley Director, Content Operations Jamie Dixon Digital Content Manager Aaron Reuteler Digital Content Coordinator Georgia McClellan

Branded & Editorial

Executive Producer Mike Ruiz

Group Creative Director Brent Baer

Senior Producer Scott Moon

Creative Director Noah Dates

Associate Creative Director John Truax

Motion Graphics Artist Will Brown Lead Assistant Editor David Kozlowski Post Production Producer Nick Tobia Finance Producer Nancy Pulciano

Editor Kristen Helmberger

Video Producer Alex Valencia, Kale Eickhof

To manage your account go to: my.motortrend.com. To contact us via email: motortrend@emailcustomerservice.com, or write to us at: MotorTrend, P.O. Box 37200, Boone, IA, 50037. Please include name, address, and phone number on any written correspondence. Occasionally our subscriber list is made available to reputable firms offering goods and services we believe would be of interest to our readers. If you prefer to be excluded, please send your current address label and a note requesting to be excluded from these promotions to: Motor Trend Group, LLC, 831 S. Douglas St., El Segundo, CA 90245, Attn: Privacy Coordinator.

Back Issues

To order back issues email us at: backissues@motortrend.com. Please include: publication name, month/year, and quantity along with your phone number. Do not include payment information in your email.

MOTORTREND Certified Vehicles

For more information, please contact us at, Info@Motortrendcertified.com

Copyright 2022 by Motor Trend Group, LLC.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED/PRINTED IN THE USA.

The MOTORTREND trademark is a registered trademark of Motor Trend Group, LLC.

ONE MORE TIME

May 1964: “There’s no doubt in our minds that this latest personal sporty car from Ford will sell like proverbial hotcakes.” Those were the first words of our first review of the first Ford Mustang, which we called “a fancy filly for fun-loving folks.” (Forgive us; it was the ’60s.)

Our afflictive affection for agonizing alliteration aside, we guessed right. Ford hoped to move 100,000 Mustangs in the first year of sales; customers bought four times as many. Within two years, Ford sold a million. The Mustang became a genuine American icon—and we say this with acute awareness the word “icon” is grossly overused in this business—a status it has maintained, for better or worse, for some six decades.

Did we know we were witnessing the birth of a legend? Perhaps not. To our mid-’60s eyes, the Mustang was a sporty car cobbled together from Falcon and Fairlane parts, akin to building the new one from the bones of the EcoSport and Escape. But we certainly knew it was something special. In our first instrumented test of a V-8-powered Mustang for the August 1964 issue (0–60 in 7.5 seconds, quarter mile in 15.7 at 89 mph), we wrote, “Every once in a while, we get to drive a car that’s exciting as well as interesting—such a car was this special Mustang.”

We garnered a fair bit of controversy when we named the downsized Mustang II our 1974 Car of the Year, yet we still maintain our reasoning was sound. Like many gearheads, we lamented the Mustang’s year-over-year weight gain. As sports car enthusiasts, we longed for a smaller, slimmer, sportier Mustang. But when the 1973 OPEC embargo caused blocks-long lines at gas stations, we knew the Mustang had to change.

“The free-wheeling, wide-open era of the American automobile, unfortunately, is over,” we wrote in February 1974. The new Mustang II, we said, was “the right size at the right time for the greatest number of motorists.” We got that one right, too, as 1974 was the Mustang’s best sales year since ’67.

Ford was prescient: Just as it saw coming austerity, so too did it see dawning recovery. The all-new 1979 Mustang was still small and trim, and like the original it was once again a car for all buyers. “It can,” we wrote in August 1978, “depending on how it’s equipped, be anything from a near-economy runabout to a plush personal luxury car to a hot performer.”

The hot-performer part is what excited us, particularly the new 2.3-liter turbo-four, which Ford promised would give the Mustang better-than-V-8 acceleration in a nimbler package.

“Are we long-suffering car enthusiasts about to witness the dawn of a new age, where we once again can own cars that perform decently and are fun to drive?” we asked in July 1978. “It surely looks like we are.” Remember, the Malaise Era was far from over; other cars in that issue included the diesel version of the Cadillac Seville and the first four-door Chevrolet Chevette.

Dusk of that new age was a long way off. Fifteen years elapsed before Ford introduced a new Mustang, one designed primarily by focus groups with old bones under new skin. The 1994 version felt like a poorly executed nostalgia play, and although we appreciated its street-fighter spirit, our summation couldn’t hide our lukewarm feelings: “Mustang loyalists will love this car.”

They had to, because another decade passed before we got a replacement, though it was one worth waiting for. The chiseled ’05 recaptured the sights, sounds, and speeds of the Mustang’s ’60s glory days. In our first drive of the GT (November 2004), we wrote, “This new pony’s blend of style, space, and speed seem as captivating as the original Mustang’s.” Still, the car had its frustrations. “’60s style, ’60s rear axle,” we said. “Has Ford taken this retro thing too far?”

We were ecstatic with the 2015 Mustang, the first in 35 years that truly felt as if it looked forward rather than back. “Even with the refinement and the technology,” we noted, “the character is not compromised. It’s 100 percent Mustang from the pony in the grille to the rumble of the 435-hp Coyote.”

Which brings us to today and the new Mustang—notable because it may well be the final generation, or at least the last of its kind. The 2024 Mustang (page 26) isn’t transformative like the original or controversial like the ’74 or even condescending like the ’94. And we doubt it’s going to sell like proverbial hotcakes. The batterypowered Mustang Mach-E already outsells the regular version.

We do expect the 2024 Mustang will keep doing what it does best for as long as it can. Our embrace of the performance potential of EVs notwithstanding, that makes us happy. As we wrote in 2004, “Only in America could an econobox in fancy dress named for a wild horse become the must-have machine of an entire generation.”

Welcome, new Mustang, and long may you ride. Q

new

Mustang be the last?

Dodge’s ElectrifiedCharger DaytonaSRT and Hornet

FIRST LOOK

Dodge’s electric future is mean, menacing, loud, and … practical?

Proof: the Charger Daytona SRT concept that teases the produc tion electric muscle car coming in 2024 and the 2023 Hornet compact SUV that brings a long-overdue entry into the U.S. market’s most popular segment.

First, the Charger Daytona SRT. It’s powered by batteries and electric motors but delivers a rumble very similar to—and as loud as—the roar of a Hemi Hellcat V-8. This is Dodge’s vision of its alternative to its present generation of gas-powered muscle cars, which will cease production in December 2023. However, we believe the next generation of those cars will also offer internal combustion engines.

The Charger Daytona SRT concept

note. The concept also has a clean design right down to the flush door handles and absence of a rear spoiler. Head of Dodge exterior design Scott Krugger said his team started by designing a muscle car, not an EV, with a signature face, swept profile, and turbine-style 21-inch wheels.

The Daytona has a nose cone built into it, a patented R-Wing that allows air to pass through the front of the hood and enhance downforce while keeping a blunt Dodge profile that nearly hides the head lights. Carbon-fiber intakes around the front and rear fascias create air curtains for even better aerodynamics. The Fratzog

An EV that’ll kick a Hellcat’s ass, plus an exciting crossover.

cars from 1962 to 1976 and stood for nothing, now has a purpose as the symbol for Dodge electrification.

Back to the sound. This is the industry’s first EV “exhaust” system, producing a similar 126-decibel sound as the one that comes from today’s Hellcat engine. Dodge calls it “Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust.”

When the Daytona converts electricity to power, air flows through the exhaust, and the sound produced goes through an amplifier and tuning chamber at the vehicle’s rear.

Dodge hasn’t revealed full specs and details, but we know the highperformance SRT trim is powered by a new 800-volt Banshee propulsion system. Lower-trim models will have a 400-volt system. The Banshee name and badge will be used only for the top-performing EVs.

The concept has standard all-wheel drive, so we know there are at least two motors, one in front and one in the back. The Daytona Banshee’s multispeed transmission with electro mechanical shifting is dubbed eRupt. Dodge didn’t reveal the number of gears (more than two ratios would

warranty. All nine power levels were designed in advance, with the hardware in place for additional upgrades at the time of purchase or later.

Every version comes with the PowerShot push-to-pass feature, a button on the steering wheel that delivers an extra 25 hp for a few seconds, enough time to blow by the car in front of you. The company didn’t provide range figures, but it argues Hellcat buyers don’t care about fuel economy. Both the 400- and 800-volt models will provide enough range to be “competitive.” The car will use the new STLA Large platform developed by Stellantis; battery sizes for vehicles on this platform are expected to range from 101 to 118 kWh. The Daytona also has a panoramic liftgate-style hatch, and the seats fold flat to give the car more utility— you can fit a snowboard in the cargo area.

As for the Hornet, its 268 hp doesn’t sound especially exciting when measured against a muscle car. But compared to class favorites like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Nissan Rogue? Those all subscribe to a common formula: standard front-wheel drive and just enough power to keep from getting run over during freeway merges. When it goes on sale in December, Dodge’s base model, the Hornet GT, will buck convention with standard all-wheel drive and enough grunt for a claimed 6.5-second 0–60 time. For speed junkies, there’s also a catalog of performance parts that won’t void the warranty, plus a quicker plug-in hybrid.

The plug-in hybrid R/T model, which goes on sale this spring, promises 288 hp and 383 lb-ft. It its front wheels through a six-speed automatic connected to a 1.3-liter turbocharged I-4 with a 44-hp starter/generator. A 121-hp electric motor turns the rear wheels. The 15.5-kWh battery pack allows for more than 30 miles

of pure electric driving, while Dodge’s PowerShot push-to-pass feature attempts to lure traditionalists into opening their minds to electrification. The brief shot of an additional 25 hp cuts the R/T’s 0–60 time by a claimed full second; Dodge also said the R/T is capable of 0.90 g of lateral grip. A Track package, available on both the GT and the R/T, adds 20-inch wheels, two-mode electronically adjustable dampers, and Alcantara seats.

Then there’s the Dodge Hornet GT GLH. Those three additional letters stand for “Goes Like Hell” and invoke the 1980s Omni GLH, a hot hatch modified by Carroll Shelby for Dodge. The GLH sports a lowering kit, an as-yet unspecified power increase, a sport exhaust, 20-inch wheels, a unique rear valence, and GLH graphics. These parts will be offered as Direct Connection aftermarket items and won’t void the car’s warranty if installed by an authorized dealer.

Alisa Priddle and Eric Tingwall

Dodge Hornet

BASE PRICE

LAYOUT

direct-injected

1.3L/180-hp/

turbo directinjected

12-valve

(front)

Dodge justifies the Hornet’s $31,500-ish starting price by loading it with premium standard equipment, including a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster, a 10.3-inch infotainment touchscreen, dual-zone climate control, and several driver aids.

Intake

2023 Ferrari Purosangue

The SUV Ferrari had to build.

Since Enzo’s day, Ferrari has pretty much built the cars it wanted to build. The Purosangue, the first four-door four-seater from Maranello, is a Ferrari that Ferrari’s customers wanted it to build.

This is not, Ferrari insists, an SUV. It is first and foremost a Ferrari, the company says, and Maranello only builds sports cars. That means cars with impressive performance and dynamics that put a smile on your face. This one just looks a little different from the rest, then, and it makes a case for being a different kind of sports car. We won’t drive it until later this year, but the Purosangue should have engineers at Aston Martin, Lamborghini, and Bentley worried.

The Purosangue has the perfect engine for a continent-crushing four-seater. Under the hood is yet another reworked version of the 6.5-liter naturally aspirated V-12. Code-named F140IA, it makes 715 hp at 7,750 rpm and 528 lb-ft of torque at 6,250 rpm. Crucially, 80 percent of that

peak torque is available from just 2,100 rpm; redline is set at an ear-smashing 8,250 rpm. The F140IA features cylinder heads derived from those used in the 812 Competizione, and the intake, timing, and exhaust systems are redesigned to deliver the broad torque curve needed to cope with the Purosangue’s mass and a duty cycle expected to consist of a lot of low- and medium-speed driving where a high-strung V-12 is the last thing anyone needs. As for high speed? Ferrari says the 4,600-pound four-door will hit 60 mph in less than 3.3 seconds and achieve a top speed of almost 200 mph.

Its body structure is all new, with lower elements made from high-strength aluminum, and extrusions and castings and load-bearing aluminum sheetmetal used to create a space-frame upper structure to which aluminum, carbon fiber, and high-strength steel body panels are bolted. The roof is a single-shell carbonfiber panel. The rear doors are rear-hinged and open to 79 degrees. That’s not just

for sidewalk show; rear doors hinged on the B-pillar would have required a longer wheelbase. As is, the Purosangue measures 195.7 inches long, 79.8 inches wide, 62.6 inches tall, with a 118.8-inch wheelbase.

The engine drives all four wheels via an eight-speed dual-clutch transmission mounted at the rear axle. The multilink suspension front and rear features steel springs and fast-acting Multimatic active shocks. The latter use 48-volt motor actuators and a twin-ball screw system to apply force in the direction of each shock’s stroke to control the body motions in response to data from an array of sensors and accelerometers. And yes, the Purosangue will comfortably accommodate four 6-foot-tall adults. They’ll have to travel with soft bags if a long trip is in the cards, however; the rear load space is shallow and offers a relatively modest, midsize-sedan-like 16.7 cubic feet of capacity.

Sales will be restricted to no more than 20 percent of Ferrari’s total annual volume. Maranello isn’t following the model so successfully established by Porsche with the Cayenne and emulated by the likes of Lamborghini, of using SUVs as high-volume cash cows whose profits fund the development of sports cars. That partly explains the Purosangue’s stratospheric price. When the first cars arrive in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2023, buyers won’t get much change from $400,000.

Angus MacKenzie

Purosangue

2023 Pagani Utopia

The successor to the Zonda and Huayra.

We’ve waited for Horatio Pagani’s follow-up to the incredible Huayra (code-named C9) and Zonda (C8) supercars for some time. Back in 2019, Pagani dropped some tantalizing hints about the next big thing, the C10. He promised it would pack a V-12 and even a proper manual transmission. The man and his company haven’t disappointed: The C10 is now known officially as the Utopia, and it looks like nothing else on the road. Not only that, but it also indeed packs the manual we were promised, in addition to an available automated gearbox and a twin-turbo 12-cylinder engine.

The engine is again built by AMG and is similar to the M158 found in the Roadster BC. But, of course, there’s more power; the Utopia churns out 852 hp and 811 lb-ft of torque from its 6.0-liter V-12. It is quite emphatically not electrified, something neither Pagani nor his customers seem to

have much interest in. That said, Pagani says the exceptionally powerful engine will meet California emissions standards, and the car will meet federal safety standards, too.

Gearbox options are an Xtrac sevenspeed “Automated Manual Transmission” or a traditional seven-speed manual with an intricately detailed gated shifter that protrudes from the dash like a beadblasted trophy. The rest of the interior is equally bold and bright, with lots of metal, gauges, and decorative lighting.

The whole thing has a bit of a neoclas sical vibe, with an unusual triple rear window arrangement that loosely invokes some high-end prewar luxury cars and even the split-window C2 Corvette Stingray. The central gauge stack, the gauge fonts, and the steering wheel (hewn from a solid aluminum block before being trimmed in perforated leather) indicate

retro inspiration. It’s all very intentional, as Pagani cites design inspiration from classics like the iconic Vespa scooter and breathtaking Riva speedboats.

The basic shape is fluid and premium, but there’s a bit of business in the finer detailing outside. The jumble of shapes that composes the front bumper and its numerous inlets (some subdivided by other parts of the bumper) gives it a catfishy appearance. But if you loved the Huayra’s maw, the Utopia will suit you just fine.

Underneath, the carbon-fiber chassis appears to be a heavy revision of the unit found in the Huayra. The suspension is a double-control-arm arrangement with electronically controlled dampers, a design derived from the one used on the track-only Huayra R. Although the visible aero elements are restrained, the Utopia features active aerodynamics to ensure it sticks to the ground at higher speeds. With the kind of power it makes and its low claimed weight, drivers will appreciate any downforce they can get their bodywork on.

Pagani will only build 99 examples of the roughly $2.2 million Utopia, and as with all things Pagani, they’re all spoken for already. But if you have a few million bucks jangling around in your pocket, perhaps you can still find a way to park one in your castle’s garage when initial deliveries commence next year. Alex Kierstein

Replace destinations with summits.

Intake 2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 4xe

that—but it feels stately and inspires confidence.

This range-topping Overland model is nice to be in, too. Featuring the $2,155 Luxury Tech Group IV and $2,235 Advanced Protech Group III, a $76,975 Jeep ought to give European luxury automakers pause. The cabin is beauti fully appointed, with buttery-soft Nappa leather, nicely textured wood trim, and luxe touches like night vision, massaging seats, and a 19-speaker McIntosh stereo.

Plug in to something special.

Not too long ago, automakers believed hybrid buyers all wanted the same boring, amorphous blob of a hatch back. So they built expensive little cars with underpowered engines and motors, slapped badges like “Prime,” “REX,” or “EREV” on their rumps, and sat around wondering why they were nailed to the same dealer lots SUVs continued to fly off of. And then someone had the bright idea to slap those badges onto SUVs. And wouldn’t you know it—they’re flying off dealer lots. We recently had a chance to spend some time in the new Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 4xe plug-in hybrid, and it turns out one of the latest plug-in hybrid SUVs to hit the streets is also among the most impressive.

The Grand Cherokee gets the same setup as the Wrangler 4xe: a 2.0-liter turbocharged I-4 with a motor wedged between it and its eight-speed automatic, four-wheel drive putting power to the ground, a 17.3-kWh battery pack stored in the floor, and a 6.6-kWh onboard charger in the front quarter panel. Total

system output is 375 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque, while it’s EPA rated for 26 miles on electricity and 57/56/56 mpg-e city/ highway/combined.

If that system sounds complicated, well—it is. Traditional internal combus tion powertrains are inherently more complex than those of an electric vehicle, and combining the two and making them play nice is an incredibly difficult feat. Yet Jeep’s engineering team did a bang-up job.

With the battery fully juiced, the Jeep defaults to its Hybrid drive mode, which is designed to favor the electric motor but also fires up the engine when more power is needed. That tends to be pretty often. (The Jeep also has Electric and eSave modes.) Passing slower traffic, accelerating to keep pace with city traffic, or merging onto a busy freeway regularly fires up the Jeep’s 2.0-liter. It’s great for getting the engine up into operating temperature quickly but lends to the impression that the Jeep’s motors aren’t powerful enough for electric driving. Switching into Electric mode corrects that notion. The traction motor—good for 134 hp and 195 lb-ft on its own—is torquey and smooth, easily propelling the Grand Cherokee forward and keeping up with traffic as the eightspeed shifts through gears.

On the road, the air-sprung Grand Cherokee manages its weight well, floating over bumps with few secondary shudders and handling confidently with well-weighted, precise steering despite our example’s optional all-terrain tires. It’s no handling dynamo, though—its 27.7-second figure eight at 0.60 g average confirms

Grand Cherokees have long been viewed by the public as merely “premium” vehicles, but the newest version takes a proper swipe at the luxury mantle. The 4xe combines the capability, practicality, and luxury that moves SUVs off showroom floors with the efficiency and performance of a rock-solid plug-in hybrid powertrain. Even though it’s about $10,000 more than its conventionally powered siblings, the new Grand Cherokee Overland 4xe is the best Grand Cherokee you can buy today.

Christian Seabaugh

Grand

2023 Genesis GV60 Performance

and heated seats are now behind the shifter. These are welcome changes.

An electrifying EV start.

Genesis will introduce its last new internal combustion engine by 2025, and the brand expects to sell only EVs by 2030. The GV60 is Genesis’ first dedicated electric vehicle, and it directly previews that all-EV future.

There are plenty of challenges when producing a first, but it seems like the GV60 was a walk in the park for Genesis. Despite its quirky styling, the compact SUV is roomy, supports charging speeds well exceeding the average, and—perhaps most important—is fun to drive.

For an SUV that has Performance in its name, you’d expect it to deliver exactly that. The GV60 Performance does. With two electric motors (one in the front, the other in the rear) combining for 429 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque, the GV60 is the most powerful Genesis today, and by a good margin. It gets more interesting: A green button on the steering wheel with the word “Boost” increases the horsepower to 483 for 10 seconds at a time, enabling hard launches. There is noticeable wheelspin initially, but once the tires hook up, your head will hit the headrest, and off you go.

Slow things down, and you’ll find it’s supremely comfortable. For a more relaxed pace, try Eco mode, which keeps

things peaceful in the cabin and changes the steering to an effortlessly light and numb setup; the motors’ power delivery is linear and tame. You won’t get the same kind of reaction in Sport mode, which stiffens the dampers and delivers power to the wheels more quickly.

The brakes are configured to favor the regen function (where the motors act as generators when slowing the car), and when the friction brakes take over, there doesn’t seem to be as much stopping power as we’d like, given how much horse power the GV60 is working with.

Another compromise for all that power? A shorter driving range. The EPA says the GV60 Performance is capable of 235 miles per charge, which is below average at this price point. We’ve seen longer ranges in the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6, which share the platform and battery with the GV60 but cost less. Granted, neither of those has as much power as the GV60 Performance (the 576-hp EV6 GT nonwithstanding), but they’re still fun to drive and are capable of more than 300 miles of range in certain configurations.

It’s no surprise the GV60 benefits from the same attention to detail afforded other Genesis vehicles, such as our 2022 SUV of the Year, the GV70. In the electric GV60, the circular and oval theme is similar but not quite identical to the one employed by the GV70, and it’s everywhere inside. And although the GV60 and GV70 launches were separated by mere months, the GV60’s steering wheel and HVAC controls feature new switchgear. The tempera ture control knobs have been replaced by toggles, and the buttons for the ventilated

There’s also more futurism throughout the GV60, namely in its facial recogni tion tech, which unlocks the car for you; consider car keys a thing of the past. Once through the door, drivers can start the GV60 with a fingerprint scan, after which a console-mounted sphere rotates to reveal the shifter; besides impressing your friends, the sphere is also a good indicator of whether the car is on or off, which isn’t always clear in silent EVs.

As EVs flood the market, it’s difficult for consumers to find the best one for their needs. Tesla was the simple answer a few years ago, but things are different with virtually every automaker going electric. The GV60 is a great first effort for Genesis, presenting a solid blend of performance and comfort and—just like the marque’s other models—a great value.

At the GV60’s $69,560 price tag, nothing else delivers this much power with as many features outside of Tesla’s Model Y Performance. Miguel Cortina

Genesis GV60 AWD (Performance)

*483 hp for 10 seconds

Intake

Jeep Recon and Wagoneer S

Like the Wrangler, the Recon can be field stripped, with removable doors and a sliding cloth roof panel that retracts to open nearly the entire ceiling. Big tires and short overhangs all but ensure the Recon enjoys enviable approach, departure, and breakover angles—key indicators of off-road prowess.

Jeep is adamant this is not the Wrangler’s replacement. The Recon is tailored to bring in new shoppers, and different shoppers than the Wrangler. The Wrangler heavily inspired the Recon, of course; it makes good sense for one of Jeep’s first all-electric SUVs to try to leverage some of the popular 4x4’s magic.

The off-road brand touts its own near-term EVs.

Talk about things that escalated quickly: Jeep has gone from offering zero electrified SUVs to two in as many years, introducing the Wrangler 4xe and Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrids in quick succession. More models are on their way, including a full-size Wagoneer EV and two more yet-to-be-detailed options for 2024 alone. But none will be as closely watched as the Jeepiest of them all: the fully electric 2024 Jeep Recon.

Appearance-wise, this Wrangler-esque 4x4 falls somewhere between today’s Wrangler Rubicon and a classic XJ

Cherokee, with the former’s boxy roofline and the latter’s mostly faired-in body work and full front end with squared headlights. Underneath, it’s nothing like either of those SUVs, and it rides on parent Stellantis’ new STLA Large platform. That means it has a fully independent suspen sion rather than old-school live axles. But Jeep insists the Recon will be every bit as capable as its gas-powered 4x4s.

The company says to expect electronic locking differentials (e-locker axle tech), Selec-Terrain traction management, skidplates, tow hooks, and beefy tires.

Indeed, the Recon gets Jeep into the EV game quickly, using a Stellantis platform destined for numerous upcoming EVs already in development. If (or when) the Wrangler goes electric, we suspect it’ll do so on the STLA Frame architecture, a body-on-frame EV platform intended for Stellantis’ trucks that use frame rails, such as the upcoming Ram 1500 EV. Such a basis would allow the iconic Wrangler to keep its live axles and general beefiness, even as an electric model.

Jeep promises to show us the produc tion Recon in 2023, with vehicles rolling off assembly lines beginning in 2024. Order books will open next year, and Jeep plans to sell it globally, including in Europe. Oh, and like the Wrangler, the Recon will be heavily supported by Mopar accessories—meaning customers will be able to upgrade to their hearts’ content.

On the Wagoneer front, the family will expand yet again, and the newest sibling is markedly different from the full-size Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer, and the longer-wheelbase L versions of both SUVs: It is a size smaller, fully electric, and exceptionally quick.

Code-named Wagoneer S, it will be a premium midsize SUV designed to compete with the Land Rover Range Rover Sport when it’s available in North America in 2024. It’s roughly the size of today’s two-row Grand Cherokee but with a swoopy look and a reimagined roof that plunges beneath the rear wing. The “S” stands for speed, and with 600 hp it has an estimated 0–60 time of 3.5 seconds, plus approximately 400 miles of range.

The Wagoneer S will use the STLA Large platform and presumably dual motors (one front, one rear) for all-wheeldrive capability, with all-terrain manage ment standard, but it will not be Rubicon Trail–rated like most other Jeeps.

Don’t confuse the Wagoneer S with plans to electrify the Grand Wagoneer in 2024. The upcoming Grand Wagoneer 4xe is expected to be a plug-in hybrid like the Wrangler 4xe and the Grand Cherokee 4xe. Jeep’s electrified Grand Wagoneer will have a combined gas engine and electric motor range of about 500 miles from a single charge and fill-up. The 4xe strategy has been a success for the company; the Wrangler 4xe is the

bestselling PHEV in the U.S. and Canada, and the newly launched Grand Cherokee 4xe is starting off strong.

As for Jeep’s two pure EVs for North America, the brand says it will fully detail them in a few months. However, those models won’t include the just-revealed Jeep Avenger. This small electric SUV will be Jeep’s first such global vehicle, and it was previewed earlier this year (shown below). It won’t be sold in North America, only Europe and other overseas markets.

To be clear, these new EVs are designed to augment, not replace, Jeep’s existing lineup. The brand, which traces its heritage to 1941, continues to reinvent itself after eight decades; Jeep wants half its U.S. sales to be fully electric vehicles by 2030, while 100 percent of European sales will be EVs by then, in keeping with the company’s goal to become the leader in electrified SUVs.

This strategy aligns Jeep with the 13 other brands under parent Stellantis, all of which are transitioning to electric vehicles as part of the Dare Forward 2030 longterm corporate plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

Rear View

DECEMBER 1972 PRICE: $0.75

Having noted their Europeaninspired features, we compared GM’s new-for-1973 intermediates—Buick Regal, Chevy Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Am, Olds Cutlass— against the Mercedes 300SEL 6.3. No GM

car beat the Benz, but all four showed signs of Germany’s influence. We lamented the Americanization of Datsun’s noisy new 610 and Toyota’s Mark II, the latter apparently a copy of the Plymouth Barracuda. Saab’s fuel-injected 99 EMS impressed us far more, a reminder that Europe still built our favorite cars.

Jeep Avenger

Alexander Stoklosa and Alisa Priddle

DECEMBER 1992 PRICE: $2.95

Our Top 10 issue split domestics from imports and named the best in 10 categories, including sports car (Chevy Corvette/Toyota MR2 Turbo), family sedan (Dodge Intrepid/ Nissan Altima), and econosport (Dodge Shadow V-6/ Hyundai Scoupe Turbo). Our Truck of the Year went to the Jeep Grand Cherokee V-8.

DECEMBER 2012 PRICE: $4.99

We took an in-depth look at the new Dodge Viper, opining that a bit more comfort didn’t lessen its bite. It was a good month for Germany: We crowned Mercedes’ GL-Class our SUV of the Year, while our sedan comparison saw the VW Passat beat a Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and Chevy Malibu.

The Recon (left) and Wagoneer S (above) mark Jeep’s first fully electric vehicles in the U.S.

A shortcut to self-driving cars:Build a smart-city utopia. Technologue

Over the years I’ve covered enough tech and innovation to believe the remaining barriers to selfdriving vehicles are primarily legal/political, and secondarily logistical. Here’s an easy shortcut: Build a new “smart city” from scratch—from the infrastructure and political landscape up—and allow no human-driven vehicles.

Many smart-city utopias are on global drawing boards today. In Saudi Arabia, The Line is envisioned as a vertical/linear desert city of 9 million measuring 106 miles long by 1,640 feet tall by 650 feet wide. Here in the U.S., cryptocurrency mogul Jeffrey Burns purchased 67,000 acres in Nevada for $170 million to build an elec tric/autonomous blockchain utopia called Innovation Park. The land is located near hub facilities of Google, Apple, Switch, and Tesla. Meanwhile, Microsoft founder Bill Gates spent $80 million in 2017 to buy 24,800 acres of Arizona desert to house his smart city, Belmont. In all, experts predict there could be 88 planned smart cities worldwide by 2050.

But the sustainable, autonomous desert utopia that recently caught my attention is billionaire entrepreneur Marc Lore’s Telosa. Like most, it envisions autonomousonly transportation, but here the Danish architectural firm designing the city, Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), is also designing the self-driving vehicles. These electric ground-to-air machines will be rhomboid shapes seating two to six or more passengers. They’ll mount to a set of wheels for short, low-speed trips amid pedestrians, bikes, and more on shared roadways. For longer, higher-speed trips, they’ll attach to drone-copter-style rotors or to magnetic levitation pads that engage elevated or subway rails. When not in use, these pods will park themselves underground.

So far, there’s no groundbreaking tech here. What really caught my attention was Telosa’s political/ economic construct, which Lore asserts will deliver the most open, fair, and inclusive living arrangement in the world. He calls it “equitism,” as it intends to borrow the best aspects of democracy, capitalism, and socialism— primarily by limiting the monopoly effect that private or corporate land ownership typically plays in established cities.

Inspired by themes outlined in Henry George’s 1879 book, Progress and Poverty, the concept hinges on the city purchasing very low-value land and building an infrastructure with the architecture and amenities to attract a forward-thinking and diverse population. Rising demand increases the value of the land. Theoreti cally, the city then sells or leases the parcels, more than recouping its investment, plowing additional proceeds into an endowment for the population’s benefit.

Lore’s numbers: Acquiring 150,000–200,000 acres costs $400 million to $500 million, with the value rising to $1 trillion after the city develops it for 5 million inhab itants. The profits are invested in diversified assets to earn $50 billion a year. This could greatly reduce the need for taxes, but equitism envisions these monies benefiting the citizenry in the form of advanced social services, health care, education, affordable housing, and programs to “increase the collective happiness and well being of the citizens.”

Lore countered arguments that equitism is just a riff on socialism or communism on the podcast Business Casual. “It’s capitalism, but it’s returning value creation back to the citizens,” he said. “This is the theory. And the only way to really test it is with a clean slate. Then as we started thinking about building this city from scratch, [we real ized] incredible innovations happening around technology enable us to do things we can’t currently do in existing cities—around sustainability, preparing for climate change and autonomous vehicles.”

Sustainability goals include zero landfill waste, running entirely on renewable energy, using 92 percent less water per person than a conventional city, and growing 20 percent of its food locally.

Telosa’s location hasn’t been finalized, yet Lore hopes to be ready for the first 50,000 inhabitants by 2030. These pioneers will be vetted to ensure diversity of age, race, religion, and income levels. From there he expects it to grow organically to 5 million by 2040.

Equitism sounds aspirational. The transportation pods, zero-landfill, and sustainable-energy plans all seem technologically feasible. I worry that finding humans with the altruism, will, and ability to administer the endowment Lore envisions will be more difficult than achieving those desert food-production and wateruse goals. But Telosa sounds way nicer than The Line. Q

As we’ve said for years, some of the biggest hurdles for autonomous transportation are political, not technological. Building a new smart city from the ground up circumvents that problem.

Canadian Convert

Congratulations to the talented design and engineering team who created the 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5. I am a stick-inthe-mud stick shifter who would never dream of purchasing a Hyundai/Kia, an automatic transmission, or an EV. Then the Ioniq 5 caught my attention, both on the roadways and in your September comparison with the Toyota bZ4X. Its cool ’80s styling reminds me of the original DeLorean more than the Alpha5 EV concept featured in the same issue.

I took a rear-drive Ioniq 5 for a test drive and found the strong and silent continuous torque combined with the faint “turbine” sound at full acceleration exciting in a new way. This car/SUV blend felt balanced and well built. The regenerative braking paddles worked well and were also a welcome way to encourage driver engagement through physical controls. You can select a spicy Sport mode using a real button on the steering wheel. The outward visibility was excellent, too.

Although the Ioniq 5 can be equipped with a battery warmer and a heat pump for the cabin, my hesitation about this EV and all others is how they will survive northern Canadian winters. Where I live in northern Ontario, the mercury will drop to –40. In contrast to analog gauges, digital display screens and infotainment touchscreens slow down or malfunction in the extreme cold. But I am considering a Hyundai automatic-equipped electric vehicle—the opposite of what I thought before. I will wait and see after a couple of winters, but I give credit to Hyundai for giving me unexpected optimism about the future of cars.

Douglas MacIntosh

Via email

Pony Defense

In Aaron Gold’s September story about the Ioniq 5 and bZ4X, he said Hyundai’s first mass-produced vehicle was “a dreadfully unreliable rustbucket called the Pony.” I bought mine new in 1983 as a second car and, more important, as a delivery vehicle for my fledgling print business. In nearly 250,000 miles of hard work and nine Calgary winters, it never let me down. In its off-work periods, I drove it in club-level rallies, slaloms, and rallycross, and beat the

Reader on Location

Our final readers on location for 2022 are Daniel Berkley and Joe Catalano of San Francisco, who wrote to us from Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada: “Joe (right) and I (left) made a much-delayed rail trip from Vancouver to Calgary with our spouses, Arlene Berkley and Joan Varrone. While the rail cars were first class all the way, the real stars of the journey were the majestic mountains and rushing glacial melt ending in stunning lakes with reflecting waters. We were impressed with the restored muscle cars on main street Vancouver, though most of our chats on the rails centered on the future of electricity versus gasoline. I often raised my history in Motown with a ’64 GTO, and Joe spoke fondly of his little BMW racer at home.”

hell out of it. As for being a “rustbucket,” no rust accumulated on mine other than that incurred by contacting hard objects during rallycrossing. The major mechanical components were bulletproof. My only real complaint was a leaky heater core after three years.

Richard Batts

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Let’s Talk Saturn

I can’t argue with Angus MacKenzie’s assessment of the Vue (“The Worst Cars I Ever Tested,” July 2022); it was an average vehicle at best. But the Saturn that evolved from the “clean sheet of paper” wasn’t the Vue; it was the S-series. The S-series was a solid product for its time, offering a good mix of efficiency, performance, and value. Its quality was also quite good at a time when most domestic brands struggled with a negative perception. Unfortunately, by the time the Vue launched, it was clear all future Saturns would use shared platforms, and Saturn was effectively treated as another division, losing much of its independence. Saturn didn’t fail because of the Vue’s shortcomings. That car existed because GM had, by then, moved away from the original vision for Saturn, causing both the brand and its products to lose what made them so popular.

James Prudente Via email

2024 FORD MUSTANG ONEMORETIME

The new Mustang’s interior is more digital than ever. The display in front of the driver offers multiple layouts, including one that pays homage to Fox Body models of yore.

Creating the 2024 Mustang, Ford pulled a gutsy and potentially historic move. The seventh generation is likely the last gas-snorting version of the pony car, but the fact it’s purely gas-snorting at all is something of a surprise. Chevrolet is rumored to sunset the Camaro as we know it ahead of an electric replacement in 2024; Dodge has confirmed its Challenger and Charger will offer fully electric propulsion around the same time. The 2024 Mustang team needed to justify its rationale for an internal-combustion-only muscle car, truly a passion project, at every turn, even with management ultimately supporting its moves. After all, Ford is in the throes of embracing electric trucks and SUVs. Mustang enthusiasts—who’ve purchased about 10 million of the cars since production began in 1964—should rejoice that Ford is even doing this at a time when electrification is all the rage. Sales of coupes and convertibles continue to decline generally while cars (not SUVs and trucks) themselves are an endangered species boxed out by insanely popular high-riding vehicles. Think about it: The Mustang, even today, is the only car Ford sells in North America. The Mustang Mach-E, an electric crossover, already outsells the two-door for which it’s named. Executive chairman Bill Ford says he knows the last gas-pow ered, stick-shift Mustang will roll off the line in Flat Rock, Michigan, in his lifetime, and he’ll have a tear in his eye when it does—but we’re not there yet. Regardless of what the future holds, the new Mustang, revealed in Detroit at the 2022 North American International Auto Show, is a commitment to many more years of traditional pony car sales. There will still be a ’23 model year for the existing generation to bridge the gap. And then the new-for-2024 model rides in, a de facto victory lap for the car with its taut new looks, modern interior,

electrohydraulic drift brake, and the ability to rev the engine via the key fob.

When the new Mustang goes on sale early next summer, consumers will still be able to choose between a coupe and a convertible. They’ll also have a choice of either a base model with an EcoBoost I-4 or a more powerful GT with a V-8, which also comes with a manual transmission. Over a lengthy life cycle, we expect to see a rollout of heritage names such as Boss, Bullitt, and Mach 1. “There is certainly some space within this platform architecture and powertrains to do some more,” Mustang chief nameplate engineer Ed Krenz says.

The new S650 platform is a modified version of the existing S550, and there are a few carryover pieces such as the roof, A-pillar, and rear glass. Notions of a Mustang hybrid or adding all-wheel drive were dropped (see page 33). Ford’s designers honed the styling, which is as evolutionary as the new S650 bones are. The result is instantly recognizable as a Mustang and checks all the right boxes with its long hood, short decklid, and tapering roof. Although the four- and eight-cylinder engines are like today’s, they’re both nearly all-new; Ford is essentially

building a better mousetrap here, adding some cool party tricks, more tech, and over-the-air updates made possible with the car’s new electrical architecture.

Early designs were tossed aside in favor of a bolder look with muscular fenders, a lower beltline, and sexier sheetmetal. Whereas the sixth-gen Mustang went more international, the seventh harkens back to its American roots to provide a modern interpretation of a classic. That means new tri-bar, LED-accented headlights to match the taillights and dramatic rear surfaces that undercut and act like a spoiler, making the car look wider even though its proportions are largely unchanged.

Above: In most fans’ eyes, it’s not a GT if it doesn’t have a wing. Below: There are a few Easter eggs, including this run through the generations.

SPECIAL FEATURES INTRODUCED WITH THE NEW CAR INCLUDE AN ELECTRONIC DRIFT BRAKE.

For the first time, the Mustang EcoBoost wears unique front styling compared to the GT, and the changes go beyond distinct grille inserts. The lower outboard openings, which are fake on the regular Mustang, are larger on the GT, with one side blocked off for aero and the other fully functional. Air also flows out through the GT’s high-gloss-black hood extractor.

The roofline is crafted to ensure drivers can get in and out without removing their helmet at the track. The convertible has an insulated fabric roof with a single-handle latch and a one-touch button to open and close it.

There are two new paint colors among the 11 offered: Yellow Splash and Vapor Blue, as well

The new pony looks good prancing outside Ford’s historic Piquette Avenue plant in Detroit.

as new colors for stripes, Brembo brake calipers, and seat belts. And there are several appearance packages to further customize the look. Wheels range in size from standard 17 inches to 19 inches on the GT, with 20-inchers optional.

Interior design manager Ricardo Garcia says it was time to shake up the interior, and he created full-scale foam bucks to elicit customer feedback on ideas burbling up from the team. During a three-year period, it evolved into the new, more open cockpit.

The new flat-bottom steering wheel is standard across all trims and is heftier. The Sync 4–powered infotainment system has fewer physical buttons because more functions are controlled via the screen. And about those screens: They’re a real departure for Mustang, with a 12.4-inch display serving as the instrument panel and a 13.2-inch center screen angled toward the driver, both under a single pane of glass in most trims. Graphics are crisp and plentiful, and they change with the selected drive mode. They are also highly customizable and nostalgic—dig into the

menu for the Fox Body–inspired (late ’80s-, early ’90s-era Mustang) faux analog dials and roll down memory lane.

Finally, there is media storage with a flat wireless charging pad, USB ports, and an angled slot for another phone. The upgraded seats come in cloth or synthetic or real leather, while the cabin has laser-grained trim that replicates carbon fiber. The top-end sound system is B&O, and the Mustang is Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatible, with Amazon Alexa built in for voice commands.

Ford updated its base 2.3-liter EcoBoost turbocharged I-4 to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency, and it’s mated exclusively to a 10-speed auto. We don’t have specs yet, but engineers tell us the power will not drop, which means it should continue to push out at least 310 hp and 350 lb-ft of torque. This fourth-generation powerplant is known as an MPC (Modular Power Cylinder) engine, and makes its debut in the Mustang. There is also a 2.0-liter MPC that will power the 2023 Lincoln Corsair and the 2023 Ford Escape.

The 5.0-liter Coyote V-8 engine is on its fourth upgrade and is also found in the 2022 Ford F-150 pickup with cylinder deactivation capability for better fuel economy. Engineers didn’t want that fuel-saving system for the Mustang because it makes the engine too tall, compromising packaging and hood height, and it reduces the engine’s redline.

For the Mustang, the upgraded V-8 has a new steel oil pan and dual air-intake boxes. The twin throttle-body cold-air intake will allow twice the airflow to create the most powerful GT to date. This means it exceeds today’s 450 hp and 420 lb-ft. The car still

has an active exhaust with the Mustang’s signature sound but adds Quiet mode to keep your neighbors happy. GT customers get a Getrag six-speed manual with rev matching, or they can opt for an improved 10-speed automatic.

Larger brake rotors and calipers are included, too. Engineers say the steering is more precise with a new rack and quicker steering ratio, while the excellent MagneRide adaptive shocks are tuned for the new car and will be bundled in the Performance package. Optional Performance packs are available for both the GT and EcoBoost models for more fun at the track.

There are a couple unique features, beginning with the new electronic drift brake developed with the help of professional drifter Vaughn Gittin Jr. It behaves like a regular electric

The cockpit has been reimagined for the digital age, but the folks who created this car know what kind of driver buys a Mustang. For us knuckle-dragging gearheads, the interior isn’t about the screens.

parking brake until you activate the “drift brake” button in Track mode, which turns traction off. (You can choose traction off or advanced traction off.) Pulling on this brake then causes the ABS module to hydraulically actuate the rear brakes only. Gittin insisted it provide instant and effortless locking, and the hydraulic actuation is quicker than the electric motor that locks the separate parking brake caliper. The drift brake comes with the Performance pack on all Mustang models. Easter egg: The Track apps icon is Grattan Raceway in Michigan, where a lot of engineering work was done.

Another new feature: The key fob not only starts the car—it can rev it. A party trick for teenagers and those who still think they’re teenagers, it’s only available with the automatic transmission (which is required for auto stop/start).

Ford sees continued life in the pony car segment and likes the idea of having a monopoly when the traditional competi tion exits. As mentioned, Dodge will stop making the present versions of the gas-powered Charger and Challenger in 2023 (though we’ve heard the next versions won’t only be electric), and the existing Chevrolet Camaro only has a few years left. “Doing this car at this time is a victory in itself,” Krenz says. “As others are saying goodbye, we’re saying hello.”

The Mustang makes it possible for an EV like the Mach-E to exist, he adds. The latter will carry the volume torch going forward, but in the end, it allows for the pony car to continue to service enthusiasts. The engineer personally hopes the Mustang silhouette continues to exist—propulsion agnostic.

We don’t know what to expect for an eighth generation— maybe a pure EV—so the seventh gen is likely the last chance for fans to kick it back old school. Either way, expect the latest Ford Mustang to have a long lifespan. It should be many years before Bill Ford needs to reach for the tissues.

Inside the Mustang’s Development Why No AWD or Hybrid?

The Mustang continues as a rear-drive, gas-powered pony car on an updated version of the existing Mustang’s platform. Sounds simple: more of the same, only better. But the decision to stay the course was not straightforward; within Ford, many ideas were vetted and debated before the company settled on a final direction.

“There certainly was a strategic point in time before this program started, where all options were on the table,” Mustang chief nameplate engineer Ed Krenz says. “Everything from two-door to four-door to fully electric to hybrid to [internal combustion engine]. We spent a long time considering the next Mustang.”

The planning dates back to 2017, two years before Krenz was assigned to the project. His prede cessor expected to retire with the car’s launch in 2019. “They spent so long in this pre-program phase that he actually retired before the program started. That’s how long they spent considering,” Krenz says.

Indeed, Ford considered an all-new platform, and there was also talk of moving to the CD6 platform used for the Explorer SUV. All future Ford products must consider electrification, but the Mustang has never had a hybrid system—and it now likely never will. A hybrid might have been a logical step to help customers walk down the path toward EVs in the future, but the introduction of the Mach-E angered some Mustang clubs, and fuel economy has never been a top purchase consideration for GT customers. The idea came and went, along with the notion of adding AWD.

By late 2019 the team had a clear vision: It would keep a lot of what made the Mustang successful and work to update the platform, powertrains, design, and tech. A new electrical architecture was crucial for the connectivity, safety systems, and gee-whiz elements Ford was able to add. Once settled on the direction, design work was in full swing, and engineers focused on the chosen propulsion system, Krenz says. Three or four months later, the pandemic began, and the company sent everyone home to continue their work. “There are still people on the team who I haven’t met,” he says.

Senior leadership offered no shortage of opinions but also strong support. The execs know rear-drive muscle cars, coupes, convertibles, and gas engines are all on a downward slope. Ford, however, decided another round of gas-powered Mustangs was good business, and it’s happy to scoop up enthusiasts with fewer alterna tives. “It was absolutely critical to success that [executive chairman] Bill Ford and [CEO] Jim Farley are Mustang advocates,” Krenz says. “We couldn’t have done what we’ve done if we didn’t have their buy-in.” AP

BLACK STALLION

THE DARK HORSE RISES AS THE FASTEST 5-OH

Ford hasn’t introduced a new named subbrand variant of its pioneering pony car since the Bullitt edition first appeared for 2001. The seventh-generation Mustang ends this long drought with the powerful Mustang Dark Horse. This is no mere appearance package with cold-air induction good for a handful of extra ponies and pound-feet; the Dark Horse represents a serious performance upgrade that lays the foundation for Ford’s combustion-vehicle racing efforts. The latter will range from

amateur classes up through global GT4, GT3, NHRA, Australian Supercars, and NASCAR (see page 36). In so doing, Dark Horse is itself a small family of hotter fastback Mustangs, with an offering of optional performance upgrades to suit customers’ personal needs for speed, style, and comfort.

The gen-IV Coyote V-8 found in the base 2024 Mustang begins with myriad revisions to ensure emissions compliance in all applications, as well as performance enhancements relative to similar V-8s powering the workaday F-150. The enhancements include a twin throttle-body cold-air intake and a higher-revving valvetrain that doesn’t support cylinder deactivation. To this basis, the Dark Horse adds a forged crankshaft and piston connecting rods to cope with higher cylinder pressures and piston speeds. These items are like those found in the Shelby GT500’s supercharged Predator engine. The camshafts are strengthened to withstand extended operation nearer the 7,500-rpm redline (shared with GT, and

WORDS FRANK MARKUS PHOTOGRAPHY ANDREW TRAHAN

Big 15.4-inch two-piece brake rotors are chomped by sixpiston calipers in front and cooled by NACA ducts. Rear brakes feature 14.0-inch discs and fourpiston calipers.

up from the F-150’s 6,700 rpm). There are auxiliary coolers for the engine oil and rear axle lube, plus a lighter-weight, higher-efficiency radiator cooled by more powerful fans, all meant to improve endurance inhard running. Naturally, the GT’s optional active exhaust is standard, offering Quiet, Normal, Sport, and Track settings. Final testing isn’t complete, but the target was 100 hp/liter. (You do the math.)

The base Dark Horse transmission is a modified version of the Tremec TR-3160 six-speed manual used in the Mach 1 and Shelby GT350; just the bell housing and vent tube are revised. Even cooler (literally): It’s manipulated by an anodized titanium shift ball that’s 3-D-printed to incorporate cooling air passages and minimize thermal mass. (Regular Mustangs make do with a Getrag manual topped by a mundane knob.) Those looking for the quickest Dark Horse will opt for the 10-speed automatic that comes with an auxiliary transmission oil cooler and gets anodized metallic shift paddles.

A standard Torsen differential ensures maximum rear traction, running 3.73:1 gearing on manuals and 3.55:1 on automatics. Also helping with that are 255/40 front and 275/40 rear Pirelli P Zero PZ4 tires on

9.5-by-19-inch front and 10.0-by-19-inch rear wheels (the GT Performance package tires). Standard MagneRide dampers also help manage weight shift, keep the tires pressed to the pavement, and constantly monitor the trade-off between steadystate ride comfort and quick reflexes when braking, accelerating, and turning.

Of course, the drift brake is standard, as it is on the GT and on the EcoBoost with the Performance package. It provides a proper hand brake that, with Track mode engaged, orders the ABS to apply hydraulic pressure to the rear brakes, in proportion to the hand brake travel.

Standard Dark Horse equipment includes a larger rear anti-roll bar, heavy-duty front shocks, an upper strut tower brace, and a lower “K-brace” to greatly enhance front-end rigidity and improve steering precision and feel.

The MagneRide shocks monitor wheel/ tire movement 1,000 times per second, modifying the ride and handling to suit the selected drive mode.

To further improve the Dark Horse’s aerodynamics, the Handling package includes a unique rear wing incorporating a Gurney flap like the one on the Ford GT supercar. The springs are stiffer, and the front and rear anti-roll bars are larger. Traction is enhanced with even wider 305/30 front and 315/30 rear Pirelli Trofeo tires on 10.5-by-19-inch front and 11.0-by-19-inch rear wheels. Naturally, the chassis hardware and software are tailored to the Handling package.

woven in. They’re also unique relative to the previous GT350’s carbon wheels, employing a different offset.

In terms of design differentiators between the Dark Horse and standard Mustang, the former’s headlamps are (surprise!) darkened and surrounded by a shadow graphic. The grille mesh openings are themselves small replicas of the overall Dark Horse grille shape, rendered in gloss black, with unique trapezoidal side intakes feeding intake airboxes. The unique front fascia incorporates gloss-black “fangs.” There are also side skirts, a rear diffuser, and darkened quad exhaust tips. Blue Ember metallic paint is exclusive to the model, and a choice of applied (decal) or painted stripe packages will be available, as will an appearance package featuring Dark Notorious Blue brake calipers emblazoned with Grabber Blue logos.

Mustang Dark Horses get a thickrimmed flat-bottom steering wheel wrapped in microsuede accented with blue stitching, with a drive mode button within easy thumb’s reach. More blue stitching accents the door panels and seats, but to maximize your interior blues, opt for the Appearance package’s Deep Indigo Blue seats with perforations that reveal still more blue. Recaro seats remain optional. Other interior trim and bezels are finished in a dark metallic finish. All Dark Horses get a B&O sound system with 12 speakers and a subwoofer, plus welcome animations on the screens.

The galloping pony is still here, but Dark Horse models also feature a stylized horseshoe (oriented up, for luck) framing a menacing, forward-facing horse head. They’re found on the fenders and decklid.

Carbon Revolution carbon-fiber wheels weighing 35 to 40 percent less than the standard wheels will be available sometime after launch as a stand-alone option, but only in conjunction with the Handling package and sized to accommodate those tires. Ford will offer two designs: one plain black and another that incorporates a subtle blue accent fiber

Without solid info on power or torque, our crystal ball is somewhat hazy when it comes to performance, and certainly the stripped-down, track-only versions will be quickest. But let’s guess the Coyote 5.0-liter will motivate this 3,900-pound beast (running aluminum wheels) with 500 hp and 425 lb-ft—besting both today’s Mach 1 (470/410) and the 2020 Bullitt (480/420) and approaching the output of the flat-plane-furious Shelby GT350 5.2-liter engine (526/429). In that case, we expect an automatic Dark Horse to hit 60 mph in 3.8 seconds or better, with the manual version running a couple tenths behind (geared as it is to only need one shift). Maybe shave another tenth for carbon wheels.

The Dark Horse hits the road along with the base and GT models in early summer 2023. Naturally, nobody is talking price this far out from production, but we anticipate the premium you’ll pay for a Dark Horse to land somewhere between that of today’s Mach 1 and the 2020 Shelby GT350. So, if a 2024 GT fastback with the Performance pack and fancy equipment group takes a small step up from today’s $48,620 to, say $50,000, we expect a Dark Horse to start somewhere between $60,000 and $62,500. And we can’t wait to see how it stacks up against the Dodge Charger Daytona SRT electric muscle car (see page 12) in terms of style, emotion, and performance.

2024 Ford Mustang Dark Horse

Motorsports Barrage: Ford Targets GT3, NASCAR, NHRA, and More

The only actual car Ford builds in North America is the natural choice for the company to send racing, and there will be variants of the new Mustang designed and developed to compete in a wide variety of global racing series.

Beginners and Amateurs

Racers on a tight budget will find plenty to love and learn with a base Mustang 2.3 EcoBoost. They’ll also be able to upgrade it with the factory Performance package or a few aftermarket goodies.

Too tame? Want a manual transmis sion? Step up to the 5.0 V-8, also upgradable with a factory Performance pack and Ford Performance aftermarket gear. Drivers looking for the ultimate streetlegal 2024 Mustang will gravitate to the Dark Horse with the Handling package.

Serious Weekend Warriors

Once you commit to trailering a dedicated race car to and from the track, you’re ready for the Mustang Dark Horse S or R models, which follow in the footsteps of the Boss 302S and 302R race cars, as well as the more recent FP350S. Ford saves you all the trouble of gutting the car, welding in a roll cage, mounting a racing seat and belts, wiring an electrical system disconnect, and installing fire suppression. The dash is simplified with minimal switches, a pit speed limiter and data acquisition system are installed, and you get an adjustable wing along with tow hooks and hood pins. Ford also upgrades the chassis with Multimatic DSSV shocks and adjustable suspension height and camber.

The S model is intended for time attacks and track days, whereas the R model is the choice for wheel-to-wheel racing. As such it gets some extra body-strength ening welds, a fuel cell, Ford Performance wheels, and serialization for the benefit of sanctioning-body approval. There’s no pricing yet, but the Boss 302S and 302R back in 2012 cost $103,000 and $169,000, respectively, in 2022 dollars.

GT4

This significant step up in capability and cost relative to the Dark Horse models above brings a bigger price tag—a 2022 Mustang GT4 goes for $250,000—but here you get to race against the GT4-spec

Aston Martin Vantage, Audi R8, BMW M4, McLaren 570S, Porsche Cayman, Toyota GR Supra, and more. The new Mustang GT4 will make its on-track debut in the 2023 season.

GT3

The global convergence in GT3 racing means the Mustang can now enter storied sports car races like the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Although Ford competed at Le Mans with its mid-en gine GT model as a factory team in the GT Pro class, Mustangs will compete in customer classes and can contend for a class win. Ford will support its customer teams around the world with parts and technical support on hand at major events.

Track time is always the most precious commodity for racers, and Ford can offer various types of aid to help teams dial in their cars to the many disparate circuits on various series’ schedules. As part of this, the company will draw on its extensive use of simulators at its Ford Performance Technical Center in Concord, North Carolina; the sims have all the major tracks digitized and available for training. Customer teams can send their drivers to practice on the simulators, though this service is not included with the sale of a Mustang GT3 race car.

NASCAR

The silhouette racer’s greenhouse will remain unchanged, but the S650 Mustang’s new production body panels will eventually result in changes to the nose, hood, quarter panels, and tail of the NASCAR version, as well. The decals will all be new; we won’t be surprised if a Dark Horse logo makes it on there. Power will continue to come from the FR9 engine.

Drag Racing and Australian Supercars

Ford is being a bit coy when it comes to its specific drag racing plans, but it will certainly put an S650 Mustang version in the long line of turnkey factory drag-racing specials that stretch all the way back to the 1968 Cobra Jet that won the NHRA Winternationals.

Regarding the latest Mustang, all the Blue Oval has said is that a newly designed model will compete “in the coming years” in the NHRA’s Factory X category. In the nearer term, the new Mustang will campaign next season in the Australian Supercars series, which features some of pro racing’s best road-course action. FM

The average price for this fleet of compact sporty car greats is just $32,924, significantly undercutting the average transaction price for a new vehicle.

If you spent your teenage years in the aughts, there was something tremendously appealing about sport compacts like the Subaru Impreza

WRX. The bug-eyed, boxer-powered sedan (and wagon) wasn’t just affordable and practical—it was fast for its time. The car packed more horsepower per liter than the Porsche 911 Turbo of the era; the WRX was like the Pontiac GTO of the millennial generation. Following its entry into the American market were more high-power sport compacts from Mitsubishi, VW, Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet, and others.

Flash forward to 2022. The WRX has dropped the Impreza name, but the scene hasn’t changed much. It’s is new for this year, as are the Honda Civic Si and Volkswagen Golf GTI—both names also familiar to any enthusiast in the early aughts. And although some competitors, such as the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and Dodge Neon and Caliber SRT-4, are no longer with us, others stepped up in their places. The new Hyundai Elantra N entered the market this year, picking up the performance mantle with a distinctly South Korean twist. Each of these cars can be had for about $33,000, depending on how judicious you are with the options list.

We also included the similarly priced rear-drive Toyota GR86 coupe, a finalist last year at our inaugural Performance

Vehicle of the Year competition, to compete alongside the front- and all-wheel-drive four-doors in our quest to identify the best performance car at a killer value.

Things begin promisingly for the VW. Now in its eighth generation, the new Golf GTI builds on where the beloved seventh-gen model left off, riding on a revised platform with a reworked suspen sion, plus carrying upgraded braking hardware and software. The carryover 2.0-liter turbo I-4 engine received some love, too, now producing 242 hp and 263 lb-ft of torque, running through a six-speed manual and a limited-slip differential to drive the front wheels. If you’re averse to rowing your own gears, you can choose an exceptionally good seven-speed dual-clutch automatic.

Unfortunately, another media outlet drove the car we tested before VW sent it our way—and promptly did a number on its clutch and tires. Volkswagen was able to repair the transmission for us in time, but it couldn’t source another set of the stock Pirelli P Zero ultra-highperformance all-season tires. Instead, the car had to make do with Continental

ProContact TX grand-touring all-seasons, a tire model commonly found on sedans like VW’s Passat. Because of timing, we were unable to reschedule our testing to wait for a GTI on proper tires.

The downgraded rubber did the GTI no favors; it regularly exhibited axle hop under hard acceleration, more noise than grip in corners, and sluggish steering reactions. “This is the only car in this group that makes me feel like I’m driving 9/10ths all the time—largely thanks to the near-constant squeal of these tires,” senior editor Aaron Gold said.

Despite the Golf showing up to the dance wearing boots, some of the car’s inherent goodness still shone through. We appreciated the stout 2.0-liter turbofour’s meaty torque curve and engaging exhaust note, and we liked the ability to customize drive mode settings (even if the user experience leaves lots to be desired).

We also didn’t mind the manual trans mission’s ropey shift action, though the wide pedal spacing and “suggested” gear reminder when in Sport mode were both annoying. No, we don’t want to shift from second to sixth at 40 mph on a canyon road, thank you very much.

Although we generally like the rest of the Golf package, it wasn’t enough to help

us look past its weaknesses. The largest is its infotainment suite. Aside from the annoying gear suggestions, the touchheavy interface is fussy at best when stationary and distracting while moving. The steering wheel’s touch-sensitive buttons are a particularly poor choice, considering how frequently we acciden tally activated the heated wheel function or changed the sound system’s volume while driving. And although the GTI claws back some ground with its walletfriendly $30,975 sticker price, 28-mpg combined EPA score, and test-best cargo volume, the flaws would have been difficult to ignore even on appropriate tires. Still, we couldn’t in good faith rank it among its peers in this showdown.

SEARCH OF THE

DRIVER’S CAR

Volkswagen Golf GTI

In our fleet of fast four-doors here, the GR86 coupe is the outlier. “It really stands out in this group: two doors, zero turbo chargers, an automatic, and rear-wheel drive,” features editor Scott Evans said. “And every one of those matters.”

Essentially a slightly more unhinged Subaru BRZ with a Toyota badge and a GR Supra spoiler, the GR86 is a back-tobasics driver’s car powered by a naturally aspirated version of the WRX’s 2.4-liter flat-four. The new GR86 lives and dies by the mantra that it’s better to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow. Its 228 hp and 184 lb-ft aren’t particularly impressive figures, but its 7,500-rpm redline (the highest in the group) and 12.6 pounds per horsepower (tied with the WRX for second best) hint at the fun available here.

The GR86 is most enjoyable with its standard six-speed manual, but there seems to be an epidemic of motoring journalists who lack the wisdom to know what they don’t know. Much like what happened with VW’s GTI, Toyota’s manual GR86 needed transmission work by the time our loan with it began. In this case, however, the car wasn’t repairable in time for our test, which meant Toyota had to send us an 86 equipped with the optional

six-speed automatic. It arrived on the proper tires, at least, so we felt comfortable making an official evaluation.

Compared to its turbocharged compact competition, the GR86 presented an altogether different driving experience. Despite a reputation as the vehicle of choice for tail-happy shenanigans, the Toyota is surprisingly well-behaved, with talkative steering and exceptional chassis and suspension tuning that always let the driver know just how much grip is left. “You can usually push limits in this car without feeling unsafe or like you’re on a knife’s edge,” associate editor Duncan Brady said. “This is the car that could help me grow the most as a driver, especially on track or driving autocross.”

Its naturally aspirated flat-four lacks some horses but makes up for it with char acter. You have the high revs, for starters, and it really scoots as it nears redline, too. Unfortunately, the six-speed auto cut the legs out from under the engine. The trans mission, which was cutting edge back in 2005 when it made its debut in the Lexus IS, is geared far too tall for the Toyota’s Subaru engine, and it tends to upshift early and downshift late when left to its own devices. Similarly, it’s often unresponsive when you resort to using the shift paddles.

It’s a small thing, but one of the best parts about the cars in this segment is they’re often available in fun colors. Our photo team nicknamed the Elantra’s Performance Blue as “Korean Airlines Blue.”

For further frustration, the software denies downshifts until the revs naturally fall to about 4,100 rpm, putting the engine in a powerband no man’s land that exists until 6,000 rpm. We appreciate how Toyota hustled to get us this car after a journalist broke the stick-shift version, but trust us when we say you’re better off purchasing the manual.

The rest of the Toyota experience comes with compromises. Sure, its sheetmetal is killer (particularly the little duckbill spoiler), but the interior is dreary

THE TOYOTA’S FLAT-FOUR LACKS SOME HORSES BUT MAKES UP FOR IT IN CHARACTER.

compromises of daily-driving a two-door rear-drive sports car, but maybe just not this one.

Four generations separate the new WRX from its original U.S.-market predecessor, but it feels cut from the same rallyinspired cloth. Longer, lower, stiffer, and wider than the version it replaces, the new WRX features a larger 2.4-liter turbocharged flat-four producing 271 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque (up 2 hp from the 2021 model), a six-speed manual (a CVT is optional), and all-wheel drive with a 50/50 front/rear torque split. It also has a revised suspension setup with improved ground clearance and roll control.

“Confidence-inspiring” has tradition ally been used to describe the WRX, but judges were mixed on the new one. After the previous generation’s dabble with road-focused driving, the new model is a return to form for Subaru, with an emphasis on all-weather, all-condition performance. “The WRX manages to feel like the original U.S.-market car from 20 years ago, evolved to today,” executive editor Mac Morrison said. “The feel of everything from the steering to the clutch and shifter to the brakes and engine is very familiar to those of us who spent a lot of time with that early-2000s car.”

Like the old WRX, the new one thrives when driven aggressively. The laggy turbo-four comes on hard at 4,000 rpm, and it rewards you for working the trans mission to keep the engine in its narrow 2,000-rpm powerband with a throaty thrum and strong shove into your seat back. The new WRX also rides and grips similarly to the old ones, with a compliant but firm ride, an informative amount of body roll through bends, and near-endless AWD traction. And although we appre ciate the customizability offered by some of the other cars in our test, we found the Subaru’s lack of drive modes to be a refreshing throwback to a simpler era.

Despite the WRX’s positives, we were mixed when it came to its steering feel and brakes. “I had to slow my hands down for this one,” Evans said. “The steering is quick and needs small inputs, or else the car feels darty.” Brady likened it to a sim-racing wheel without force feedback. Gold was among those who enjoyed it. “Once I got used to it, I really did like the steering,” he said. “It makes it easy to keep light fingers on the wheel and feel the feedback from the road.”

We all agreed an armrest for the driver’s right elbow would likely help those with heavier hands tame the Subaru. A few drivers also wanted more initial bite from the brakes, arguing they were squishy

compared to the other cars’. Ignoring the loud cabin, tinny stereo, and tight back seat (which, as an aside, at least folds flat to help accommodate a full set of extra tires), the cabin doesn’t feel particularly well designed or well built. There isn’t much storage for day-to-day items like your phone or keys up front, and hard plastics covering the center console tunnel and top mean the driver’s right knee and elbow are bruised easily, especially during hard driving. We’re usually more than happy to accept the

Subaru WRX

We’re not sure what secret sauce Honda uses, but it continually makes some of the best manual shifters in the industry, regardless of price. The Civic Si’s is no exception.

in initial application, though others found the brake pedal easy to modulate with plenty of stopping power.

We were mixed on the rest of the package, too. Cheaper versions exist, but our test car’s $36,990 price tag was the highest in this group, and its EPA rating of 22 mpg combined was the lowest. Our drivers were fond of the SUV-like seating position and supportive buckets, but the rear seats and trunk aren’t as generous as those of the other two sedans.

We also aren’t fans of Subaru’s tabletsized infotainment setup. It’s not quite as bad as Volkswagen’s system (at least this one has a couple knobs and buttons),

but the screen is laggy and difficult to use while driving, and it looks dated, too. Unlike the Toyota and VW, the WRX was in the running for the top spots, but as good overall as the Subaru is, two other cars are simply more compelling.

The Civic Si has never been one for the horsepower war, as that’s the Civic Type R’s job, but the car has always faithfully lived up to the segment’s ethos by being practical and fun to drive. The new-for2022 Civic Si sports the same modest 1.5-liter turbo I-4 as pedestrian Civics, but it gets a power bump, a six-speed

manual (the only transmission choice), and a limited-slip differential at the front wheels. The Honda aims to make up for any power gap with a stiffer chassis and suspension tuning (the latter with fixedrate dampers), plus larger brakes than the previous Si.

The Civic Si doesn’t post particularly memorable numbers at the test track, but it absolutely comes alive where it matters. On the road its composed chassis, well-damped suspension, and talkative steering are absolutely sublime; they feel organic and inspire great confidence. You can take the car to its limit—not difficult to do with just 200 horses and 192 lb-ft on tap—and enjoy a rush as the car flows from corner to corner. “Put it in Sport mode, turn off traction control, and you can make this car turn really well,” Morrison said. “I was hanging with an Alfa Romeo Giulia with no problem, laughing a bit as I imagined the Alfa driver looking in the mirror and wondering why he couldn’t shake a Civic.”

If there’s any room for improvement, it’s unsurprisingly found under the hood. We unanimously deemed the Civic to have the best-feeling manual shifter of the lot, yet we all wanted more from the engine. Sure, it’s quick to rev and makes all the proper angry four-cylinder noises, but the little four-pot tends to hang revs on upshifts and could do with just a smidgen more horsepower so it doesn’t feel so one-note. “Without much performance from this engine, I could imagine feeling as if I had outgrown it within a year of ownership,” Brady said.

Nonetheless, the Civic Si is an excep tionally easy car to live with. The cabin is spacious and comfortable, and it seems built far better than its $29,190 sticker

BEFORE YOU EVEN DRIVE IT, THE ELANTRA’S STYLING SETS SERIOUS EXPECTATIONS, AND IT MORE THAN DELIVERS.

Honda Civic Si

Hyundai Elantra N

suggests. Fit and finish are top notch, and all the switchgear and touchpoints have a quality feel to them; it’s the only car here without any obvious-to-the-eye cost-cut ting. The Civic is efficient, too, netting a test-best 31-mpg combined rating.

The Elantra N is an all-new model, but it’s already put in quite a showing in its first go against the competition. Building on where the recently discontinued Veloster N left off, the Elantra N is a take-noprisoners approach to the segment.

The boy-racer styling is augmented by a stiffer chassis (helped in part by a cagelike brace in the trunk), grippy rubber, and a high level of driver adjustability to the N’s suspension, steering, throttle, and more— the latter is usually a pipe dream at this price point. It’s potent, too; the Elantra N we tested sports a 2.0-liter turbo I-4 putting out a test-best 276 hp and 289 lb-ft. It puts its power to the front wheels through a six-speed manual and limitedslip diff. (An eight-speed twin-clutch auto is also available.)

Unlike with the Civic Si, we can’t imagine outgrowing the Elantra N. “Wow, this thing is a lot more intense than the Civic Si,” Gold said. “While the Civic feels relatively mature, the Elantra N is fast, frenzied, and almost a little frightening.”

Before you even drive it, the Elantra’s styling sets the expectation that it’s a serious performance car, and it more than delivers. The incredible level of adjustability allows each driver to find their personal goldilocks setting of suspension stiffness, steering weight, throttle response, traction control, and differential aggressiveness, making it as docile or as frenetic as you desire.

Once dialed in to your liking—admit tedly a process, especially for those with options paralysis—the Hyundai is just as confidence-inspiring as the Honda. The Elantra N has a penchant for uncorking just the right amount of performance its pilot can handle. Greener drivers will

enjoy its planted feel, its quick turn-in, and the way you can use the limited-slip diff to yank the car out of a corner, while experienced aces will love its composed chassis, which allows you to slide its rear into corners and pivot quickly toward the next straight.

“The cornering speeds you can carry with this car are nuts,” Evans said. “The grip and the compliance let it sail through rough corners like a German sport sedan.” Morrison was likewise impressed: “I

almost couldn’t believe it when I discov ered just how much I could rotate this car into a corner entry using the brakes.”

Aside from the class-above performance goodies, you get a lot for your hard-earned $33,645 in the Hyundai, too. Granted, its interior isn’t quite as fun to look at as the exterior, but the Elantra N makes up for it with its segment-leading infotainment package. The snappy touchscreen lets you customize drive modes and program the steering wheel’s “N” button, and it offers

Toyota GR86

Volkswagen Golf GTI

From this angle, the Toyota GR86 looks like a mini Supra. We don’t hate it.

fun features like lap timers and g meters (plus a white noise machine, if you’re into that kind of thing). Furthermore, the Elantra is livable. Whether you’re caning it on a good back road or commuting to the office (or wherever you go these days), the front seats are all-day comfortable, and the back seats are adult-friendly. The interior receives its biggest demerit for some lesser-quality materials below your beltline, and for the fact the rear seats don’t fold.

Even with those minor flaws, the Elantra N punches way above its weight. As much as we applaud the Civic Si, our winner delivered much of the Honda’s purity plus even more hair-raising passion. It’s not just a compelling sport sedan—it’s one that thrusts the class forward and fully resets expectations of what a do-it-all performance car should be. Q

DNF VOLKSWAGEN GOLF GTI S PROS

• Hatchback body style is immensely practical

• Great engine

• Relatively affordable CONS

• Showed up on the wrong tires

• Awful infotainment suite

• Touch-sensitive buttons

VERDICT A former favorite let down by bad tech and tires so poorly suited for performance we couldn’t rank it.

4TH PLACE TOYOTA GR86 PREMIUM PROS

• More fun than its power output suggests

• Exceptionally well-balanced chassis

• Killer looks CONS

• Automatic transmission isn’t great

• Drab interior compared to the competition

• Loud cabin

DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine,FWD

ENGINE TYPE Turbodirect-injected

alumblock/head

DISPLACEMENT 1,498cc/91.4cuin

COMPRESSION RATIO 10.3:1

POWER (SAE NET) 200hp@6,000rpm

TORQUE (SAE

WEIGHT

SUSPENSION,

VERDICT A manual transmission would have helped, but it wouldn’t fix the serious compromises inside the cabin.

3RD PLACE SUBARU WRX LIMITED PROS

• Standard AWD

• Feels like a modern interpretation of the original

• Comfortable ride CONS

• Laggy revs, narrow powerband

• Quick steering isn’t for everyone

• Inefficient for the class

VERDICT A faithful reinterpretation of the original WRX, but not everyone’s cup of tea.

2ND PLACE HONDA CIVIC SI PROS

• Best-feeling manual in this group

• An exceptionally pure driver’s car

• Most affordable CONS

• Could use more power

• Engine doesn’t have as much character as the rest of the car

• You’ll always wonder if you should’ve bought the Type R

VERDICT An excellent car that’s still a few ponies shy of true greatness.

1ST PLACE HYUNDAI ELANTRA N PROS

• Scary quick, in a good way

• Massively adjustable

• Great bang for your buck CONS

• Brace in trunk limits utility

• Number of settings may overwhelm some users

• Average interior quality VERDICT Novices and experienced drivers alike will find lots to enjoy about this affordable and incredibly engaging performance car.

STEERING

TURNS

DIMENSIONS

Front-engine, FWD

Front-engine, AWDFront-engine, RWDFront-engine, FWD Turbo direct-injected DOHC 16-valve I-4, alum block/head

Turbo direct-injected DOHC 16-valve flat-4, alum block/heads

Port- and direct-injected DOHC 16-valve flat-4, alum block/heads

Turbo direct-injected DOHC 16-valve I-4, iron block/alum head

1,998cc/121.9 cu in2,387cc/145.7 cu in2,387cc/145.7 cu in1,984cc/121.1 cu in 9.5:1 10.6:1 12.5:19.6:1 276 hp @ 5,500 rpm271 hp @ 5,600 rpm228 hp @ 7,000 rpm241 hp @ 6,500 rpm 289 lb-ft @ 2,100 rpm258 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm184 lb-ft @ 3,700 rpm273 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm 6,750 rpm6,000 rpm7,600 rpm6,500 rpm 11.6 lb/hp 12.6lb/hp12.6lb/hp 12.8 lb/hp 6-speed manual6-speed manual6-speed automatic6-speed manual 4.15:1 (1, 2, R), 3.18:1 (3-6,)/2.71:14.11:1/2.74:13.90:1/2.27:13:45:1 (1-4), 2.76:1 (5, 6, R)/2.51:1

Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar

Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

13.5:19.50-14.1:1 2.2 2.6 2.5 1.9

12.2:1 13.5:1

14.2-in vented disc; 12.4-in vented disc 12.4-in vented disc; 11.4-in vented disc

245/35R19 93Y Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S HN

245/40R18 97Y Dunlop SP Sport Maxx 600A

11.6-in vented disc; 11.4-in vented disc

13.4-in vented disc; 12.2-in vented disc 8.0 x 19-in cast aluminum8.5 x 18-in cast aluminum7.5 x 18-in cast aluminum 8.0 x 19-in cast aluminum

215/40R18 85Y Michelin Pilot Sport 4 225/40R18 92H Continental ProContact TX (M+S)

107.1 in105.2 in101.4 in103.6 in 62.4/62.2 in61.4/61.8 in59.8/61.0 in60.4/59.6 in 184.1 x 71.9 x 55.7 in183.8 x 71.9 x

in167.9 x 69.9 x 51.6 in168.8 x 70.4 x 57.6 in 38.4 ft36.7 ft35.4 ft35.8 ft 3,208 lb (63/37%)3,412 lb (60/40%)2,871 lb (56/44%)3,082 lb (62/38%) 5545

39.9/37.3 in38.8/36.7 in37.0/33.5 in38.5/38.1 in 42.3/38.0 in43.1/36.5 in41.5/29.9 in41.2/35.0 in 56.5/55.6 in56.7/55.6 in53.6/51.7 in55.9/53.9 in 14.2 cu ft12.5 cu ft6.3 cu ft19.9 cu ft (34.5 w/ seats folded)

2.2 sec1.7 sec2.6 sec2.4 sec 3.63.23.74.0 4.64.35.15.1 5.96.16.66.2 7.87.68.58.2 9.59.510.710.3 11.412.313.212.6 14.414.9—16.0 18.719.3—20.8 2.93.13.02.4

14.4 sec @ 100.1 mph14.3 sec @ 97.8 mph15.0 sec @ 96.2 mph14.8 sec @ 96.5 mph 110 ft113 ft107 ft124 ft 1.00 g (avg)0.94

(avg)1.00

(avg)0.85 g (avg)

sec @ 0.74

0.76

(avg)26.5 sec @ 0.66

(avg) 2,100

rpm2,000 rpm

The Hyundai N Vision 74 is the hottest concept car of the decade, and not just because its Tokyo Drift meets-1980s-box-fenders visuals blew up everyone’s phones when the first images appeared a few months ago. No, the N Vision 74 is much more than stunning eye candy confected under the direction of Hyundai design chief SangYup Lee. This fully functioning, fully drivable concept teases Hyundai’s vision of the future for 21st century performance cars.

And it’s totally production feasible.

That’s right. Instead of the usual concept car mix of vaporware and unobtanium under the skin, the N Vision 74 uses hardware and technologies you’ll find in existing Hyundai production vehicles. What’s more, Hyundai N brand sources hint that if enough people want one, senior management might well be persuaded to produce a street-legal model.

The N Vision 74 celebrates a Hyundai that was never built, the 1974 Pony Coupe concept, designed by the legendary Giorgetto Giugiaro. For Lee, who left South Korea at the age of 18 and has spent 26 years working in automotive design

studios for 15 brands in eight countries, and whose design credits include the 2010 Chevy Camaro and today’s Bentley Continental GT, this paean to the Pony Coupe was a deeply personal project. “I’ve sketched N Vision 74 ideas for years,” he says. “I was even sketching them on the plane to Korea, on my way to start at Hyundai. I wanted to create a car that celebrated Hyundai’s roots.”

Turning those sketches into threedimensional reality involved Hyundai’s N brand management and motorsport subdivision, the in-house hot shop set up by former BMW M boss Albert Biermann. For N, now run by former MercedesBenz executive Till Wartenberg, the N Vision 74 idea became part of its Rolling Lab program, where fully functional prototypes are engineered and built to test and evaluate performance-enhancing ideas and technologies.

The corner-carving e-LSD and eightspeed dual-clutch transmission fitted to the Hyundai Kona N production model are products of the Rolling Labs program.

The RN22e electric car is another Rolling Labs project, learnings from which will be

While other automakers go all-in with battery electric vehicles, Hyundai is experimenting with a novel hydrogen/ battery combination.

applied to the Ioniq 6 EV racer Hyundai plans to run in the 2023 eTouring Car World Cup—and to the roadgoing Ioniq 5 N performance EV scheduled for launch next year.

The N Vision 74 is built as a testbench for a high-performance hydrogen fuel cell powertrain. Although other automakers— notably Mercedes and Honda—have largely walked away from fuel cells, Hyundai is a believer. Along with Toyota’s Mirai, the Hyundai Nexo SUV is one of just two fuel cell vehicles available for sale in the U.S.

Despite the paucity of hydrogen infrastructure, Hyundai believes fuel cell vehicles have viable long-term potential as alternatives to conventional EVs, especially in terms of their range and quick refueling capability. And, Wartenberg says, fuel cell powertrains offer interesting possibilities in top-level motorsport. “The fuel cell idea in the N Vision 74 has a lot of potential to go endurance racing,” he says. “I wouldn’t be doing my job if I said I’m not thinking about it for the Le Mans 24 and other endurance races.”

The car’s proportions, stance, and detailing are superb—retro-inspired but modern in terms of execution. To a generation that grew up with stubby-nosed hot hatches and mid-engine supercars, this angular, muscular Hyundai is a fresh and exciting take on a modern performance car.

But what’s under the skin is no less fresh and exciting. Hyundai calls the N Vision 74 a hydrogen electric hybrid vehicle. That’s because its powertrain uses electricity from both a hydrogen fuel cell and from a 62.4kWh battery that can plug in and recharge just as in any normal electric vehicle.

For city driving or freeway cruising, the 85-kW (net) fuel cell stack provides all the electricity needed to power two motors mounted at the rear, one driving each wheel. On the track, under high-load, high-demand conditions, the battery pack provides the bulk of the power.

The tricky bit, Hyundai N engineers say, is to balance the output demand between the fuel cell stack and the battery pack, as well as the charge flows. When it’s not being used to help deliver maximum performance, the fuel cell stack can be employed to replenish the battery’s state of charge, for example. Keeping it all cool is another challenge: Three independent cooling systems look after battery, fuel cell, and motor temperatures.

Perhaps most intriguing is how much production or near-production hardware is used. The fuel cell stack and the two high-pressure hydrogen tanks are from

the Nexo. The electrical architecture is an 800-volt system, as in the Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6. The motors are similar to those that will be used in the forthcoming Ioniq 5 N. And although it has a unique multilink suspension all around and bespoke subframes, key body structure elements are shared with the Genesis G70.

This is the clever stuff: The N Vision 74 isn’t just a technical showpiece—it’s about building a business case. Using as much production or near-production hardware as possible would help reduce the development and manufacturing costs of a production version. And it enables the car’s boosters to position it to Hyundai senior management as a legitimate halo for the brand.

Also clever: The N Vision 74 wouldn’t be an orphan inside Hyundai. The car

has the same wheelbase as the Genesis X Speedium concept, insiders say with a smile that leaves you to draw your own conclusions. And, they add, we can expect to see another concept that could also be part of the same vehicle family.

“We would like to make this car as soon as possible,” N brand management team department head Joonwoo Park says. And he and his colleagues are doing their damnedest to make it happen.

I’m the first person in the world outside of Hyundai Motor Group engineers and test drivers to get behind the wheel of the N Vision 74. “Please do not crash it,” they say as we walk toward the winged coupe crouched silently in the pit lane of the stunning Bilster Berg circuit in northern Germany. It’s one of one, this car, and it has a busy few days of media drives ahead of it.

The interior has clear motorsports intent, yet it draws heavy inspiration from Hyundai’s 1974 Pony Coupe concept.

Wriggle past the full roll cage, and settle into the wing-backed racing seats. There’s plenty of microsuede on the dash, center console, and steering wheel. A large silver binnacle houses the digital instrument panel and cooling vents, and it’s anchored to the center console via a buttress with a full complement of HVAC controls.

The rotary gear selector and the cluster with the e-brake button, drive control knob, and stability control off/on switch is straight out of the Hyundai parts bin, as are the turn indicator and wiper stalks.

One look at the instrument panel tells you a lot about the powertrain. A graphic shows the total power from the motors, while others show the torque deployed individually by each motor. Additional ones show the percentage of power coming from the battery and the fuel cell, as well as the battery’s state of charge and the amount of hydrogen in the pair of pressurized tanks under the rear hatch.

With a full battery and 9.25 pounds of hydrogen on board, Hyundai says the N Vision 74 has a maximum range of more

With

than 370 (non-racing) miles. Regardless of whether it’s the fuel cell or the battery supplying the electrons, the car is an electric-powered vehicle, and that’s how it drives. You get that trademark instant-on torque and linear surge of thrust when you squeeze the accelerator.

One lap in Normal mode to get a feel for it, and then I switch to Track mode. Among other things, the latter activates the simulated e-diff functionality, achieved by varying the torque each motor sends to the rear wheel it drives. The N Vision 74 punches hard out of corners when you go to power and feels very much like a car driven from the rear end, the traction enhanced by the 40/60 front/rear weight distribution.

The Pirelli P Zero tires—270/35R20s up front and 315/30R21s at the rear—were fresh at the start of our stint and feel a little green and greasy, so it pays to be smooth with the accelerator, especially when I turn off stability control. Steering feel is good.

Checking in at a claimed 5,450 pounds, the car is no featherweight—engineers say a production version would be considerably lighter—but the wide-track Hyundai disguises its mass well, feeling planted and responsive on the way into

corners. The low center of gravity helps, and you can load the front axle under braking to improve turn-in then go to power early to make the chassis rotate.

There was, at first, a strange pause followed by a sudden power pop when I accelerated out of corners, but I quickly realized this was a byproduct of left-foot braking. The power cut-out switch didn’t allow me to accelerate as I came off the brake pedal. I wanted to be able to better blend the two actions, I told Hyundai engineers afterward. They nodded and took notes. It’s an easy software fix.

I

Hyundai’s RN22e concept previews performance tech intended to make N brand EVs fun to drive “

t’s not just a design exercise. It’s not just a technology demonstrator. As a brand we want to send out the message that there’s an optimistic future.” That’s how Jaekeun Yoo, a member of the Hyundai N brand’s bright and enthusiastic manage ment team, sums up the RN22e.

Less easily explained was the occasional odd corkscrewing motion from the rear at speed on the straights. It felt as if the torque outputs from the rear motors weren’t in sync, as if neither motor could figure out precisely which wheel could use the most power and when. Again, the engineers took note, and the fix is probably in the software. I couldn’t verify the claimed sub-4.0-second 0–60 time or 155-mph top speed at Bilster Berg; an indicated 120 mph was the highest speed I saw. But the powertrain unquestionably has punch.

What’s next? It’s up to us, the N folks say. When asked whether Hyundai would build an N Vision 74 for a 30-something tech billionaire with money to burn, Wartenberg’s response was unequivocal: “Why not? But I wouldn’t do it for that one person because we have to stay true to our N brand. And that means building an everyday sports car that’s accessible and affordable. We want to put highperformance on the road and make it very close to our enthusiasts.”

A production version wouldn’t be cheap, even with Hyundai’s impressive ability to keep a lid on costs and the fact that key parts and structural elements could be shared with a production version of, say, the X Speedium and another halo car. But Hyundai has come a long way from the days when it sold cars simply because they were cheaper than comparable Japanese models—a range-topping Ioniq 5 or a fully loaded Palisade SUV will set you back north of $50,000 these days, while the top end of the Genesis lineup now commands more than $80,000. There are those in Seoul who firmly believe the Hyundai brand could support a high-tech, high-performance coupe with a premium price tag.

The Hyundai N Vision 74 could neatly invert the Kevin Costner line from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams: If enough of you come, they will build it. So if you want one in your driveway, start pestering the folks at Hyundai right now. Q

This swoopy, muscular track rat based on the forthcoming Ioniq 6 shows EVs don’t mean Armageddon for true performance fans. “Seeing what’s available and what’s possible, we don’t agree with that perspective,” Yoo says. “We think we can deliver a really exciting product in terms of EV performance.”

As a Rolling Lab project, the RN22e is, in the short term, being used to prove out some of the hardware that will be found in the Ioniq 6–based car Hyundai will enter in next year’s eTouring Car World Cup race series. The Ioniq 6 racer will replace the Veloster N–based hatch Hyundai now campaigns in the series and will mark the motorsports debut of the company’s bespoke E-GMP electric vehicle hardware. In fact, Hyundai N brand boss Till Warten berg says, the Ioniq 6 racer means Hyundai will be the first automaker to run a car built on a bespoke BEV architecture in the series.

More significant, RN22e learnings will be baked into Hyundai’s first production performance EV, the Ioniq 5 N, scheduled to make its debut in 2023. Based on what we’ve seen of the RN22e, more than 500 hp is pretty much a given. But if our RN22e drive at Bilster Berg is any guide, the Ioniq 5 N promises to not only be a fast electric vehicle but also an electric vehicle that’s fun to drive fast.

Its dual-motor powertrain packs a total of 576 hp and 546 lb-ft, and it’s fed by a 77.4-kWh battery, the same capacity as available in the Ioniq 5. The output split between the two motors is asymmetrical; the rear motor alone produces 362 hp, more than the total output of the regular dualmotor Ioniq 5, while the front motor makes 214 hp. Hyundai says the motors now spin

to more than 20,000 rpm—up from 15,000—to deliver a higher top speed.

The front/rear power distribution tech already available in E-GMP–based Hyundais such as the Ioniq 5 has been developed further, using experience gained from Hyundai’s World Rally Cars, to enable quicker switching between all- and rear-wheel drive. A torque-vectoring system on the rear motor uses clutches to individually adjust the torque distribution to the left and right rear wheels.

Despite the car’s 50/50 weight distribution, it feels decidedly tail-happy on our first hot laps. Lift off on corner entry, and the rear end starts to come around. Get on the power midway through a fast sweeper, and it’s the same story. Fortunately, the transitions are benign; it doesn’t take long to get used to using the prompt lift-off rotation to get into the corners and then using the accelerator to control the slip angles through them.

That’s not the quickest way around a track, of course, and N engineers say that if you want to chase ultimate lap times, a more balanced, higher-grip chassis setup is only a software change away. But the car was deliberately set up to be something of a showoff drift king, to prove an EV can make you smile behind the wheel. (See page 26 for another example of this train of thought.)

In an era when many EVs feel stolidly one-dimensional in dynamic terms, this chassis is remarkably receptive to driver inputs. I began my laps with the regen in the highest setting, which is what Hyundai’s test driver used during his demonstration run. This helped load the front axle on lift-off and initiate rotation on turn-in. But the lower

regen setting allowed for more nuanced adjustments with the accelerator, making the car feel more balanced through fast corners.

The corollary of that, of course, is you tend to work the brakes harder. To cope, the RN22e uses high-performance friction-material pads in four-piston monobloc calipers that clamp big 15.8-inch rotors front and rear. The Hyundai stops well, with decently consistent feel and good stability. Engineers say they’re further tuning the regen braking so drivers can attack corners more aggressively.

Hyundai is also testing a battery-precon ditioning system. Battery temperature hugely affects an EV’s performance, so the RN22e’s system raises the temperature to the desired level to maximize performance before track driving then lowers it to enable fast charging using E-GMP’s 800-volt architecture. As a result, the battery can go from a 10 percent charge to 80 percent in just 18 minutes. To help make thermal management even more efficient, the motor and battery have inde pendent cooling systems, both fed by the intake at the front of the car.

Wartenberg says high performance emotionalizes cars and people, but making an EV as emotional as a high-performance gas-powered vehicle is a challenge.

“The entire industry is thinking about this question,” he says. “Our answer is to keep the same [characteristics] as in ICE vehicles.” To the point, the RN22e features a simulated

gearshift mode and simulated engine noise, the latter played through both internal and external speakers. From behind the wheel, the engine noise is surprisingly convincing, rising and falling in conjunction with the fake gearshifts, actuated via paddles just as they would be in a conventional car with a dual-clutch transmission. Driven with these systems on, the RN22e sounds every bit as growly and muscly as a bad-boy ICE performance car.

The simulated gearshift mode doesn’t make you go quicker, though. In fact, it’s slower on the track, not least because the power and torque outputs from motors are cut to give the sensation you’re shifting gears. But it does feel reasonably realistic, and you have to pay attention to shift points to be as quick as possible, just as you do in a real dual-clutch car.

Fake shifts and fake noise are certainly gimmicks, but arguably no more so than putting a clutch pedal and seven-speed stick shift in a Porsche 911 when a PDK dual-clutch is quicker and more efficient. Hyundai’s little tricks here are neat, and they definitely up the engagement for drivers who want sound with the fury that comes from a big-horsepower, high-torque EV. That’s what the RN22e is all about. It’s meant to be fun, to both convince established enthusiasts and reassure future enthusiasts that EVs don’t mean Armageddon is upon us. AM

The N Vision 74 and RN22e are both products of Hyundai’s Rolling Lab program, where it puts bleeding-edge tech to the test. As with the RM19 and RM20e, two other Rolling Lab projects, we’d love to see these reach production.

PERFORMANCE COLLIDES WITH NOSTALGIA AS THE NEW Z FACES THE GR SUPRA

WORDS JONNY LIEBERMAN PHOTOGRAPHY RENZ DIMAANDAL

The’80sareback,baby!Kate Bushisstillrunningupa hill,peopleareunironically wearingOakleysunglasses, Hyundaiunveiledaconcept carthatlooksjustliketheDeLorean Group B race car that never was, and TopGun:Maverick was the summer’s runawayboxofficehit.Ourcollective unconsciouslustforallthingsretro now extends into MotorTrend’s pages aswepita2023NissanZagainsta 2022 Toyota GR Supra, two Japanese sports cars that have roamed our nation’s streets for decades.

Intriguingly,Toyotadoesnot build the Supra; BMW, its partner intheproject,does.ThenewSupra is in fact the hardtop version of the quite pleasant BMW Z4. So aside

frombodypanels,thereisn’tmuch Toyotaaboutthecarsavefortuning.

As for the new Z—Nissan dropped the numeric part of the car’s name—it is an amalgamationofNissanandInfiniti parts. The FM chassis, for example, dates to2002.Thebigquestions:IstheZjust anostalgiaplay,tuggingatthe heartstringsandfatteningwallets of Generations X and Y? Or is there somethingmorethere?Isitasgoodas the Supra?

Firstthought:Bothcarscould lookbetter.The2014ToyotaFT-1

concept,whichpreviewedtheeventual productionSupra’sdesign,wasastunner, butithadtoshrinkaroundtherealityof theZ4’shardpoints.Theresultingcaris proportionallyoff.That’safancywayof sayingtheSupralooksstumpy.

TheNissan’slooks,meanwhile,might makeyouscratchyourhead.Thefront endisanobvioushomagetotheoriginal 240Z from 1970, but the rear is lifted from the R32, which made its debut for the1990modelyear.Perhapsitmostly worksifyou’veneverspenttimestudying either of those old Z’s, but it’s all a bit

mishmash. The perfectly rectangular grille is odd, and some angles are better than others; all throughout this comparison test, it was easy to notice a new unappealing viewing angle, like the odd lines on the hood. Or the headlights, which look like Roz’s glasses from Monsters, Inc. Overall, the Toyota wins on looks, even if it would be much better if it were longer.

Things take a 180 inside the cars. The Supra is essentially a BMW, right down to the trunk release. Like many BMWs, it’s a spartan, black abyss of a cockpit. The Nissan’s cabin at least offers up a bit of excitement. “The analog boost and turbo rpm gauges look like proper Fast & Furious tuner items,” said MT staffer Duncan Brady, my comparison-test co-driver who wasn’t even alive in the ’80s. “And the sizable infotainment and instrumentcluster screens make a half-convincing attempt at modernity.” Fair play. He also had disdain for the Supra’s shift paddles: “These suck.” We both much preferred the Z’s long, metal paddles. Oh, right: This is where we need to say that while both the Nissan and Toyota can now be had with a manual transmission, the manual Supra

wasn’t yet in fleets when we executed this test. So we went with automatics, a ZF-sourced eight-speed in the Toyota and a nine-speed in the Nissan.

You would never know by looking, but the Supra is actually 0.1 inch longer than the Z, and it’s 0.4 inch wider, too. The Z, however, is 0.9 inch taller, which makes it look like the larger car. The Nissan is heavier, 3,597 pounds compared to the Toyota’s 3,395, a fairly significant difference. More significant is that 57 percent of the Z’s weight rests on its front wheels, whereas only 52 percent of the Supra’s weight is up front. Both vehicles have 3.0-liter turbocharged six-cylinder engines, but the Nissan has two turbochargers—one for each half of its V-6—while the Supra’s straight-six makes do with a single turbo. The additional turbo allows the Z to outpower the Supra, 400 hp to 382. That said, the Toyota produces more torque, 368 lb-ft versus 350. One caveat here: Since we first drove a Supra, we’ve institutionally suspected the engine produces more power than advertised. There might even be a dyno chart (or three) floating around on the internet that confirms our suspicions.

The less powerful Toyota hit 60 mph in 4.0 seconds in our instrumented testing, 0.3 second quicker than the Nissan. You might say the Supra is lighter

and torquier, and the quarter mile is the real horsepower test. Guess what? The Toyota’s lead widened by the end of 1,320 feet, covering the distance in 12.3 seconds at 114.7 mph against 12.9 seconds at 107.6 mph. (We achieved the Z’s numbers using a bottle of octane booster, because California’s “premium” gasoline is only 91 octane, and Nissan recommended we do so.) To get one idea of why we think the Supra’s engine is underrated, take a look at the trap speed: The car was 7.1 mph faster with supposedly only 0.1 pound less per horsepower.

When it was time to stop, the Toyota proved it has much better brakes in terms

WE’VE LONG SUSPECTED THE SUPRA’S ENGINE PRODUCES MORE POWER THAN ADVERTISED.

Thanks, Nissan, for giving the Z a hand brake. Or should we say leaving the Z with a yank-your-own?

Nissan Z

Toyota GR Supra

of both performance and feel. The Supra stopped from 60 mph in 101 feet; the Nissan managed a best of 111. The Z’s brake pedal isn’t very easy to modulate, either; it feels somewhat wooden and makes it difficult to tell where you are in relation to ABS engagement.

In contrast, the Supra’s brake feel is quite good: You can easily stay out of the ABS and still find strong braking. The Supra also bested the Z in terms of roadholding, pulling 1.04 g (average) on the skidpad compared to only 0.92 g. All of the above adds up to a big gap between the two cars in our figure-eight

We can either say the Supra’s interior is a black pit or point out that it looks just like a BMW’s. You choose!

COMPARISON

We love the new Z from some angles. Others, like this one, we’re left questioning. The Supra looks better, especially with the doublebubble roof.

THE NISSAN’S ENGINE IS A JOY ONCE IT CLIMBS PAST 5,000 RPM.

out of sorts. Turn-in isn’t razor sharp, but it’s at least a proper Japanese steak knife, and the rear differential can put this new engine’s power to the ground without kicking you sideways. However, Nissan’s choice of retaining the old car’s enormous traction control button and mechanical e-brake mean there’s plenty of tomfoolery to be had.”

SUPRA

test: 25.0 seconds for the Nissan and 23.8 for the Toyota. A delta exceeding 1.0 second indicates these cars live in different performance classes.

SoCal’s fantastically slithering and challenging Angeles Crest Highway might not represent the “real world” to most who buy these cars, but it’s a nice, traffic-free road where we were able to fully examine these two classic nameplates. And by “nice,” I mean “yeehaw!” My feelings about both cars pretty much mirrored what our test team discovered at the track, but Brady felt a bit different.

“This Nissan platform’s stability impresses me—decent grip and enough control through midcorner pavement imperfections to keep me pushing with no fear of punishment,” he said. “The body moves around a bit but never feels

For my money, I couldn’t accept how much the Z squirmed under braking, especially when compared to the Supra. Even a moderate pedal jab produced a rolling wave of chassis uncertainty. As Brady said (and as our track testing bore out), the Nissan simply delivered less grip than the Toyota did. Ultimately you have a car that doesn’t hug the road all that well and shimmies under braking, and it doesn’t inspire as much confidence. Better suspension damping and stickier tires would likely go a long way here, but when performing a comparison test, a car’s bad attributes become inflated because you’re always able to jump back into the other car and appreciate its better behavior. You won’t notice this stuff about the Nissan during a normal real-life test drive, but the Z stumbles near its limits.

On the plus side, the twin-turbo V-6 really comes alive as it builds revs, something that lends the car a nice helping of character. The Nissan isn’t as quick or as punchy as the Supra, but its engine is a joy and feels powerful once it climbs past 5,000 rpm. However, the nine-speed

transmission is noticeably inferior to the Supra’s eight-speed. “I was only impressed with the Nissan’s transmission because I hadn’t driven the ‘BMW Toyota’ yet,” Brady said. “The ZF eight-speed is the better choice; it feels every bit as quick as some dual-clutch autos, and it delivers outstanding low-speed refinement.” You just can’t beat this transmission when it comes to torque-converter automatics. But the Z’s twin-turbo V-6 feels capable of being alive at all times rather than only when in the upper rev range—if Nissan would take a little time to rework the first 20 percent or so of the throttle map.

The Toyota Supra? It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty great to drive and better than the Nissan. With a superior gearbox, sharper steering, better brakes, and less weight to fight, the quicker Supra emerges from this contest as a better driver’s car. “The Supra is without question the car I’d take to the track,” Brady said.

To his point, even if everything else were equal, the Toyota’s better suspension damping deals with a bump almost immediately, whereas in the Z you feel like the springs and shocks are still rebounding from the previous jolt as you get to the next one. It’s easy to suspect the Nissan’s unibody is more flexible than the Toyota’s, a reasonable assumption when you remember the platform is two decades old. Hopefully, Nissan will address this area when it releases the eventual NISMO model. Extra bracing will be welcomed, but

even with it, the Z might simply carry too much weight on its front tires.

All said and done, the Toyota Supra is a better sports car than the slightly less expensive Nissan Z. We could point out the fact that the Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE costs less and is worlds better to drive than either, but let’s keep our eyes on this particular nostalgia prize. Both the Z and the Supra suffer from not having their respective manufacturers’ full attention. This is obvious with the BMW-built Supra, less so in the Z until you attempt to drive it like a modern car and realize it’s an evolution of something old.

It’s tempting to be cute here and say something like, “Because these are nostalgia machines, an old platform is fine.” But no. Instead, tip your cap to the GR Supra for winning while admonishing both Nissan and Toyota. Each can and should do better. Otherwise, when nostalgia for the 2020s rolls around 30 years from now, our professional descendants will be writing about two other brands. Q

2ND PLACE 2023 NISSAN Z PROS

• A classic nameplate lives on

• Revvy engine

• Still has a hand brake CONS

• Nose-heavy

• Brakes

• Body control

VERDICT

Although no new modern sports car is ever a bad thing, we expected better dynamics from the Z.

1ST PLACE 2022 TOYOTA GR SUPRA

PROS

• Sharp handling

Punches above its weight

Modern chassis CONS

Disproportionate looks

A bit pricey

Not a true Toyota

A competent, fun-to-drive German sports car we wish was a true Japanese sports car.

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS

DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT

Front-engine, RWD

Front-engine, RWD ENGINE TYPE

Twin-turbo direct-injected

DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, alum block/heads

Turbo direct-injected DOHC 24-valve I-6, alum block/head

DISPLACEMENT 2,997cc/182.9 cu in2,998cc/182.9 cu in

COMPRESSION RATIO 10.3:1 10.2:1

POWER (SAE NET) 400 hp @ 6,400 rpm382 hp @ 5,800 rpm

TORQUE (SAE NET) 350 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm368 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm REDLINE 7,000 rpm6,500 rpm

WEIGHT TO POWER 9.0lb/hp 8.9 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic8-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL DRIVE RATIO 3.13:1/1.87:13.15:1/2.02:1

SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar

STEERING RATIO 15.0:1 15.1:1

TURNS LOCK TO LOCK 2.6 2.0 BRAKES, F; R 14.0-in vented disc; 13.8-in vented disc13.7-in vented disc; 13.6-in vented disc WHEELS, F; R 9.5 x 19-in; 10.0 x 19-in forged aluminum9.0 x 19-in; 10.0 x 19-in forged aluminum TIRES, F; R 255/40R19 96W; 275/35R19 96W Bridgestone Potenza S007 255/35R19 96Y; 275/35R19 100Y Michelin Pilot Super Sport (star)

COMPILATION PROJECT

The new 911 Sport Classic is many things: the second model from Porsche’s Heritage Design series, an homage to classic 911s of the late ’60s and early ’70s (most notably the ’73 Carrera 2.7 RS, but with nods to the 2010 997 Sport Classic), and, with a limited run of 1,250 examples worldwide, a must-have for well-heeled Porsche collectors.

WORDS AARON GOLD

The uninitiated might mistake a passing Sport Classic for a run-of-themill 911, but Porsche geeks will spot differences immediately: double-bubble roof, ducktail spoiler, center-lock wheels (20-inchers up front, 21s out back), and a spot on the doors for a racing number. The unique quarter panels feature the 911 Turbo’s flared fenders but without the usual intake openings, which have moved to the rear spoiler. Porsche modified prototype Turbo tooling to make the panels, but that’s still a lot of money and effort for a limited-run car.

As for the powertrain, it’s the ultimate “parts bin special,” and we use that term with affection here: The Sport Classic borrows the 911 Turbo’s 3.7-liter engine, detuned to 543 hp and 442 lb-ft of torque (down 29 hp and 111 lb-ft from the Turbo) so it’ll play nice with the Carrera’s seven-speed manual transmission and rear-drive setup. Incidentally, this makes it the most powerful manual 911 on offer. Consider this power package an homage to the original 930-gen 911 Turbo, which was exclusively manual/RWD.

But while the original rear-drive Turbo was a surefire suicide machine, the new

Porsche created a unique quarter panel for the Sport Classic, flared like the Turbo but without the intakes—a costly way to distinguish this costly 911.

Sport Classic is a surprisingly gentle car—so docile, in fact, it’s difficult to believe there is so much power hung out behind the rear wheels. Not that it’s slow; it’s anything but. Porsche claims a 0–60 time of 3.9 seconds, which is a tenth of a second quicker than it claims for a base, non-S 911 Carrera with a shift-it-yourself

gearbox. The clutch is light, and the sevenspeed stick is good fun to row, though it doesn’t have best-in-the-world feel like the GT3’s six-speed. That said, the manual transmission is largely superfluous; so long as the engine runs between 2,500 and 7,000 rpm—a range conveniently greenbanded on the tachometer—the 911 Sport Classic will charge ahead like a destrier.

What struck us about this model is its gentlemanly demeanor. Our trip to Porsche’s hometown included a refresher drive in the previous Sport Classic, the 2010 997-body car, which was built in an even smaller batch of 250 and never came to the U.S. The old Sport Classic is a hardcore sportster with a heavy clutch, hyper-responsive steering, and an ironwilled suspension, and it drives more

like a hardcore Porsche GT model than a Carrera. We couldn’t help but wonder if buyer feedback said the next Sport Classic should be less intense.

Whatever the reason, the new version is more of a touring car with a busy but compliant ride and delightfully light steering. It’s never itching to get out of shape like those old widowmaker 930s; rather, it has sufficient rubber and electronics to keep the back end securely planted. By 911 standards, the Sport Classic is quick and quiet, a stealth speeder for those who have a track-ready 911 like a GT3 or a 911 R back home in the garage (next to the Carrera 4 they use as a winter beater). It’s not the driving experience that sets it apart; rather, it’s how a glance in the rearview mirror reveals the ducktail peeking up through the back window. If you can appreciate that, then you can appreciate the Sport Classic.

Whether you can afford to appreciate it is another matter: The car lists for $273,750, making it the most expensive model in today’s 911 lineup.

This, then, is definitely not the 911 for those who have saved for decades to buy the Porsche of their dreams. Instead, it’s the blue-chip collector car Porsche dealers are likely to allocate only to their best customers. All of which sort of renders irrelevant everything we’ve written here.

Sport Classic is the only way to get the 911 Turbo engine with a manual trans, but the engine’s broad torque curve all but eliminates the need to change gear.

For the 1,250 folks who will buy these things new, what we say is unlikely to sway them.

So then, what ramifications, if any, does the 911 Sport Classic have for the common or even beyond-common man?

The exclusive bundling of the 911 Turbo engine, manual transmission, and rearwheel drive is no doubt a headline-maker that will attract bench-racing veterans to the conversation. But is it really all that desirable? As we’ve said, the 3.7’s torque, even in detuned form, is so prodigious that it nullifies the need to change gear. You could bolt the shifter into third and drive the car all day. Now, if we could get the GT3’s six-speed in a Carrera GTS … but that’s another conversation entirely.

What better can we say about this car than to examine the sum of its parts?

It’s not like the 911 R, where Porsche set out to make the best-performing 911 it could. It’s not like the GTS, where Stuttgart aims for a particular sweet spot between performance and livability. No, it’s a unique combination of hardware designed for wealthy Porsche fans who have bought every other 911 and are ready for the Next New Thing.

If that sounds cynical, then forgive us, as that is not our intent. The 911 Sport Classic is a wonderful creation we’re eager to drive again. Would we pay $273,750 for one? No, but we’re not the target audience—and for those who are, the Sport Classic is a marketing bull’s-eye.

2023 Porsche 911 Sport Classic

WORDS AARON GOLD

With the introduction of the limited-edition Sport Classic, Porsche celebrates the 50th anniversary of one of the most famous 911s, the 1972 Carrera RS 2.7.

To connect the dots between the original ducktail and today’s Sport Classic, we drove four classic 911 RS models, including both versions of the 1972 car. Ride along and experience the evolution of the RS.

1972 911 Carrera RS 2.7 Sport

I begin like the purist that I am with the 911 Carrera RS Sport, the stripped-down homologation version of the then-new, more powerful, and, hopefully, more stable 911. To reduce weight, the RS Sport does away with the rear seats, carpeting, and armrests. The window glass is thinner, the door cards are literally just cards, and the Porsche badge is glued rather than bolted to the hood. My dad bod is largely

incompatible with fixed shell seats, but these are surprisingly comfortable, and the cabin has a classy look I didn’t expect from a race-ready Porsche. My first glance in the rearview mirror reveals the ducktail spoiler peeking up through the backlight.

We leave the Porsche museum in convoy, and as soon as we hit the back roads, the Cayenne leading us takes off in a game of catch-me-if-you-can. I slide the long shift lever down into second and open the throttle, and the old 911 gives chase in a way you don’t expect from an early-’70s museum piece. The 2.7-liter flat-six only has 207 hp, but it delivers its 188 lb-ft of torque in a broad, flat curve.

The engine note is magnified by the lack of sound insulation, a marvelous boxer grumble overlaid by an insistent whine.

But the steering is what really amazes me. No power assist, yet it’s light and

The feedback you get through the original 911 Carrera RS’ controls is like no modern car. You don’t just drive— you manipulate the machinery.

precise, responsive but not at all twitchy, with the car turning into corners sharply after a few degrees of steering wheel rotation. There is so much feel, I seem connected psychically to the roadway. I’m concerned about oversteer—old 911, of course—but the steering loads up so progressively, I can tell exactly how close I am to the tires’ limits without the need for posterior feedback. Everything I need to know, everything I want to know, is conveyed to my fingers through that thin plastic steering wheel rim. I understand now why my 1970s forebears were so heated in their condemnation of power steering. Who would have thought the best steering I’ve ever experienced would be found in a 50-year-old car?

Braking intimidates you, however. The pedal rides so high, I nearly bang my knee on the steering wheel while lifting my foot enough to step on it. The brakes feel springy and stiff, but like the steering, they allow an amazing amount of precision and control—and feedback! I can’t remember ever having a brake pedal talk to me in such clear language.

We crank up our speed in the curves, and I soon find the trick to driving this old 911 is to let the car do the work. I hold the steering wheel with light fingertips, and the Porsche glides through the curves, seeming to find the right line all by itself. What word best describes the RS Sport? Find me a portmanteau of heaven and magic, and that’s the one I’ll use.

1972 911 Carrera RS 2.7 Touring

All too soon it’s time to switch cars, and I trade for another ’72 RS, this time the daily-driver Touring version, painted sunny yellow. Compared to the Sport, the Touring model is downright posh, with adjustable seats and an armrest on the

door. I twist the key and the engine fires, its thrum muffled by the extravagance of a back seat.

Back out on the curvy roads, my first thought is, “Who put a Buick in the Porsche museum?” Compared to the Sport, the Touring’s softer seats and softer ride make for a significantly softer drive. The shifter is a little less precise; in the Sport, changing gears felt like sliding a knife through a rare steak until it hit the hard, hot stone beneath. The Touring has a dodgy three–four quadrant, which I imagine is a factor of wear rather than design. The connection to the road is still there, but it’s a little more gauzy.

What the two versions share is what most modern cars lack: that lovely mechanical feel, a sense you are not merely driving but interacting with the machinery. I can practically feel history through the controls: the 911’s roots in the 356 and the 356’s roots in Ferdinand Porsche’s prewar people’s-car prototypes. I signal a turn; as the wheel returns to center, the stalk disengages with a

musical pop and clang. No plastic tabs or microswitches here. The 911 uses proper levers and springs, just as god intended.

It takes a little longer, but the yellow 911 and I soon find each other’s rhythms, and we gradually meld into one. Speeding through the curves, I feel like I have so much control. The steering, accelerator, and brakes let me meter my inputs with the precision of an artisan. I own an American car of this vintage, an old full-size Dodge sedan, and I think now of its floaty yet rumbly ride, its overboosted steering, its unassisted drum brakes that require the strength of an ox and lock up

’72 Sport (left) and Touring (right)

with abandon. This first-generation 911 is everything the Dodge isn’t; no wonder Porsche blew Americans away.

The road winds uphill, and I put the throttle to the mat, getting the weight on those back wheels to keep them planted. It’s a pinch-me moment. I’m powering up a curvy German road in a classic Porsche 911, and if there is a finer felicity than this, I have yet to experience it. The car may be my second-favorite here so far, but this old thing knows how to show a driver a good time, that’s for damn sure.

1992 911 (964) Carrera RS 2.7

We must change partners again, and the serenity I found in the first pair of 911s is shattered by the third, a bright-pinkishpurple 964-generation 911 RS. This is another racer, lightweighted like the 911 Sport: no armrests, no back bench, and shell seats that greet me with obvious

disapproval of the 40 pounds I’ve packed on since this car was built in 1992. The interior looks completely different, more like what I remember from car magazines of my youth. Yes, the 911 changed a lot in 20 years.

But then I drive, and I realize, no, it didn’t. The clutch pedal feels the same as the ’72s’ as I push through its long, stiff arch. The brake pedal no longer requires a long leg lift, but its short, firm travel delivers the same precise feel. The shift lever sprouts from a console instead of the floor, but it moves with the same direct, mechanical feel as in the older cars. Although the 964 looks different than its ancestor, it feels almost exactly the same.

Its attitude, however, is completely different. This is a very angry car. “No more dinking around,” it says. “We’re not out for a joy ride; we’re going to drive.” The 964 RS is quicker in all of its responses, most noticeably the steering. Still unassisted, it’s not just heavy but stiff, and it trades the older 911s’ gentle play for an off-center restlessness that makes the car a chore to drive.

More than anything, though, it is hellaciously quick: 260 hp might sound tame, a 0–62 run of 5.4 seconds slightly less so, but neither number conveys what this car is really like. The ’72 RSs like to run, but this RS bolts like a mischievous thoroughbred, interpreting the slightest prod on its flanks as permission to go flat-out. You can practically hear the

impatience in the harsher engine note. The older 911s are happy at 5/10ths, but this one insistently taunts you to push into the danger zone, which, you need no reminder, is a very real place in an old 911. This is the Carrera that parties like Belushi—you aren’t living unless you’re living on the edge.

Yet its attitude feels like bravado, the shallow veneer that covers every inferiority complex. It’s as if everything this car does is an attempt to rebel against its roots, to make you forget it’s not much different under the skin than those friendly little 911 RSs of the early ’70s. But just like you can’t escape that view of the spoiler in the rear window—even if it is now electrically operated—the 964 RS can’t escape its true nature. Every input has the manipulating-the-machine magic of the original, but in the 964, the magic has distinctly dark overtones.

2000 911 (996) GT3 RS

I’ve escaped the 964’s clutches, having barely resisted its siren song to push too hard, and now it’s time for a 21st-century take on the underlying idea, in the form of the original GT3 RS. I’m shocked by the modernity: power windows, power steering, and—could this be? Oh my goodness, it is!—a stereo.

The GT3 RS feels a little out of place; indeed, it’s a substitution for a 993 Carrera RS Clubsport, which had apparently succumbed to mechanical

The

’72

Compared to the older Porsches, the 996 GT3 RS largely eschews emotion—not to mention comfort—in a blind pursuit of pure speed.

Why a Ducktail?

The original 911 Carrera RS is known for two attributes: its larger 207-hp 2.7-liter engine and its distinctive ducktail spoiler. The latter was intended to solve a rear-end stability problem at speeds of 95 mph or so (as low as 75 with a good crosswind). Aerodynamicist Hermann Burst found a straightforward solution: Fit the 911 with a chin spoiler and a kammtail rear end. The former was fine, but the latter clashed with Porsche’s mandate that said the 911’s recognizable shape could not be changed.

Burst went back to the wind tunnel and discovered a spoiler shaped just

so could provide the same benefits as a kammback. But when designer Harm Lagaay and his colleagues saw Burst’s solution, “We were terrified,” Lagaay says. “We wanted it smaller, more elegant.” Burst and Lagaay worked to find an answer that would look good and still bestow the desired aerodynamic benefits, resulting in the ducktail. The new spoiler not only fixed the stability issues but also improved airflow to the engine and helped keep the taillights clean—a serious concern in 1970s Germany, where massive roadwork and construction projects made for dusty sailing.

malady. In the 993’s stripped-down, track-ready, roll-caged place stands its own successor, the 355-hp water-cooled GT3 version of the 996, itself the first all-new 911 since the original.

Compared to the pre-millennium cars, everything has changed, and I’m not sure it’s for the better. The clutch pedal hangs above the floor rather than protruding from it, and it’s stiff and abrupt in its takeup. The shifter sits too far aft for comfort and has none of the direct mechanical feel of the older Porsches. It is anything but a joy to use, as if Porsche was trying to prepare its drivers for the twin-clutch-automatic future. The steering is hypersensitive, and a goodsized bump can fling the GT3 from one side of its lane to the other. Gone is the whine of the air-cooled 911’s fan, replaced by a generic, fuming roar.

The nicest thing I can say about the 996 is that it isn’t trying to lull me into a suicidal misstep like the 964 was. This car isn’t angry, nor is it happy, sad, or indifferent. It’s a machine designed to blindly transport its occupants as quickly as they dare. I cannot blame it for doing its job, but after a few miles my leg aches from the heavy clutch, as does my mind from the intense stream of attention that driving this car requires. I know I should enjoy this moment—driving the most raw and powerful 996 on German roads—but I just can’t. If the original Carrera 2.7 RS is heaven, the GT3 is someplace a little warmer and lower in elevation.

Yes, of course, it’s a homologated racer, and you would be perfectly justified in telling me that if I want a comfortable cruiser, I should drive a Toyota Camry. But I’ll remind you the ’72 911 RS Sport was also a homologation special, and it was pure joy—and, if memory serves, that car and its derivative, the RSR 3.0, did just fine on the track, too. For me, anyway, driving this 911 GT3 is much like eating oysters: It’s an experience everyone should have at least once, but once may well be enough.

Past to Future: Cycle Broken

To be fair to the 911 GT3, it adequately prepared me for the new Sport Classic, a car that is both intensely powerful and admirably docile, returning to the roots of the original 911 Carrera RS 2.7, a car that concentrates on the joy as much as outright insanity and raw speed.

It’s intense to drive all these 911s in a single day, but having now walked the path the RS models forged, it’s easy to understand why the 911 Sport Classic is the way it is. Q

WORDS MIGUEL CORTINA

WILLIAM WALKER

Driving from Los Angeles to the picturesque town of Lone Pine, California, we’re having a deep think about what led us to this point. Who in the world approved dropping a 470-hp V-8 into the Jeep Wrangler to create the Rubicon 392? And at the same time, who at Ford should we credit for the 418-hp Bronco Raptor? The basic vehicles beneath these badass variants are already massively capable off-roaders, vehi cles able to take you places few others can. Why the need for absurd power? Neither of these SUVs makes much sense—frankly, they’re preposterous, and we mean that in the most complimentary way possible.

Of course, putting them on showroom floors involved much more than simply bolting in beefy engines. Both the Wrangler Rubicon 392 and the Bronco Raptor— a.k.a. the Braptor—underwent rigorous and thorough development before emerging into the wild. Their chassis were modified to deliver additional strength and even higher boulder-bashing prowess while also making them supremely fast on- and off-road. The Bronco Raptor, for example, is a whopping 10 inches wider than its regular sibling, and the 392 has a completely different suspension setup than the standard Wrangler. We spent two days pitting these beasts against each

BADASS

other on sand dunes and technical trails, as well as on twisty roads and highways, to find out which absurd—and absurdly fun—SUV reigns supreme.

It might not feel like it, but the Bronco versus Wrangler rivalry is a recent one, having only kicked off in earnest once the Ford was brought out of mothballs and reconstituted as a direct competitor in 2021. Even so, it already feels like Mustang versus Camaro, BMW versus Mercedes, or Ferrari versus Lamborghini—a partisan battle for the ages.

The Bronco Raptor and Wrangler 392 exist to please American enthusiasts looking to do crazy stuff. Fuel efficiency is not on their list of priorities, but having fun is, and both vehicles deliver.

The Braptor’s heart is a 3.0-liter twinturbo V-6 with 418 hp and 440 lb-ft of

torque coupled to a 10-speed automatic transmission. The hardware is largely the same as found in the Ford Explorer ST, but the Bronco has more power and a different mission, necessitating a new tune for the gearbox. A suspension overhaul comes courtesy of the Ford Performance team—which also birthed the Mustang Shelby GT500—including new Fox shocks and unique control arms. The result is 13.0 inches of front travel and 14.0 at the rear, with ground clearance checking in at 13.1 inches. Our as-tested price was a

COMPARISON

Both the Bronco and the Wrangler feel at home on the twisty, scenic roads around Lone Pine, California, something hard to believe of two offroad machines.

not-insignificant $77,015, compared with a starting sticker of $70,095.

The 392, on the other hand, starts even higher than our test Bronco, at $81,190, and our example carried an $87,165 tag. A massive 6.4-liter Hemi V-8—Ford doesn’t offer an eight-cylinder Bronco—rumbles underhood to the tune of 470 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque. Its eight-speed automatic sends that power to all four wheels via a full-time active transfer case. In 4WD Auto, this Wrangler sends 70 percent of torque to the rear axle but can send up to 50 percent to the front. Several changes

were made to accommodate the bigger powerplant, including relocating the suspension mounts. The rear springs are 20 percent softer and the front springs 10 percent stiffer compared to the regular Rubicon, and Fox 2.0 monotube shocks are fitted in place of Tennecos.

The 52-hp and 30-lb-ft gap between the Raptor and the 392 is certainly felt, with the Jeep being much quicker and more eager to pile on speed. The delta between the two to 60 mph is a big 2.0 seconds, at 4.2 versus 6.2, and stays the same through the quarter mile, which the Wrangler covers in 12.9 seconds.

The Jeep backs up its numerical wins with a sensory one. Press the throttle, and the active exhaust erupts with a sound like a dragon breathing fire. The Braptor simply doesn’t have the shove or the sonic chops of the 392. “It’s not slow, but it ain’t that quick, either,” features editor Scott Evans said of the Ford. The Raptor is also less engaging to drive,

though only slightly. To the good, its width makes it feel much more stable than the Jeep, which turns in a bit more eagerly but feels more top-heavy, and the Ford’s ride is suppler. But that girth also makes the Ford more of a handful in urban environments. It’s harder to see out of and more difficult to maneuver and park, though the 360-degree camera system helps. The Wrangler offers superior outward visibility and feels like a microcar in comparison. Ultimately, however, on-road manners are a secondary point for these rigs, even if that’s where they’ll likely spend most of their lives. It was time to head for the dirt.

Located south of Lone Pine, the Olancha Dunes offered the perfect opportunity to test these go-fast off-roaders in their natural habitat. The Bronco’s suspension keeps it gliding over bumps, especially as you pick up speed, and vibrations are tamed better than in the Wrangler, which feels more skittish as you traverse whoops and small lumps. The Bronco also landed softer when jumping at the dunes, where it simply felt more comfortable. “It’s not a trophy truck,” Evans said, “but it’s closer than just about any other street vehicle you can buy new, even the F-150 Raptor and Ram 1500 TRX.”

For the ultimate off-road test, we headed south to California’s Rowher Flat, where we’d previously compared the Wrangler 4xe plug-in hybrid with the Bronco Sasquatch. (The Wrangler won that day.) By this point, we had already noted many ways the Bronco Raptor improves on its lesser siblings on all surfaces, but it was here where we got the clearest impression. Obstacles that were struggles for the Bronco Sasquatch were conquered easily—practically cruised over—by the Braptor. We applaud Ford

The Braptor’s interior is a step above the 392’s, with better tech and materials—such as the leather and microsuede seats.

for the improvements baked into the Braptor; it’s miles ahead of the Sasquatch in terms of ability, refinement, and overall execution. “I think these all-terrain tires are the real game-changer off-road,” Evans said, after completing the trail without engaging low range. “The mud-terrains on the Bronco Sasquatch couldn’t hack it on other surfaces.” But the SUV’s width was an omnipresent concern here, too; we covered the trail without any damage, but there will be plenty of places this thing simply doesn’t fit.

In contrast, there were a few instances where the Wrangler required multiple attempts or approach angles to cover the same terrain, even as its narrower track and superior visibility proved quite helpful. We also needed to go into four low

to lock the front and rear differentials on occasion, in locations the Raptor could do in four high. “There are plenty of off-road situations where four high and a locked rear are all you need, not low gears plus two lockers,” Evans said.

Hopping from the Wrangler’s cabin and into the Bronco’s is like swapping an iPhone 10 for a 14 Pro—the Wrangler gets the job done, but it lacks the latest

technological polish, having carried forward basically unchanged for five years. The Wrangler’s 8.4-inch Uconnect touchscreen, for instance, has tons of features, but its resolution appears lower, and it feels tiny compared to the Ford’s 12.0-inch display. Both infotainment setups have Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, but the Bronco’s offers a wireless connection. And although the Jeep’s off-road maps are extremely useful, you have to activate its breadcrumbs feature yourself. The Raptor automatically drops little dots on a map when it notices you’ve gone off the road, a neat feature in the event you get lost. We also prefer the look and overall customization of the Bronco’s digital instrument cluster over the Jeep’s analog speedo and tachometer.

The Wrangler 392’s interior is just like other cabins in the lineup. Instead of making it plusher, Jeep hardly made changes at all.

ON-ROAD MANNERS ARE A SECONDARY POINT FOR THESE RIGS, EVEN IF THAT’S WHERE THEY’LL SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME.

The Wrangler 4xe Is the Right Tool for Off-Road Photography

Any time you see a picture in MotorTrend, there’s a car missing. It’s the photo support vehicle, and it’s an absolute must-have. Like any other tool of the trade, you need the right one for the job you’re doing, and when it comes to shooting serious off-road tests and comparisons, you need a support vehicle that can keep up with the test subjects. To shoot our Wrangler Rubicon 392 versus Bronco Raptor comparison, we needed another Wrangler.

For your typical off-road photo shoot, you can get away with just about any SUV with all-wheel drive and a little ground clearance. But when you’ve gotta keep up with the two best factory-built off-road vehicles ever made, you need some serious hardware. You need a support vehicle that can do everything and go everywhere the test models can. That means off-road tires, serious clearance, real four-wheel drive with low gear, locking differentials, and a discon necting anti-roll bar if you can get it.

In fact, you need more than that. See, the photographers inevitably put a lot more miles on the support vehicle during a photo shoot than the editors put on the test vehicles. The shooters don’t just follow cars around—they run ahead to get into position before the others get there. They scout side trails looking for additional photo locations. They do car-to-car photography, where the photographer shoots pictures out the window, sunroof, or rear hatch.

With all that running around, fuel economy matters. That’s where the Rubicon 4xe’s plug-in hybrid powertrain comes in clutch. Your typical off-road vehicle doesn’t get great fuel economy, so a hybrid system makes a big difference in how long you can

stay out on the trail before you need to head into town for gas.

When it comes time for the photog rapher to poke a head (or entire torso, secured by a harness) out of the vehicle to get the shot, removable roof panels make all the difference. Whether it’s folding back the front portion of the soft top or popping off hard panels, being able to open the roof makes it a lot easier for our shooters to stand up while working. Being able to flip up, roll down, or completely remove the rear window makes it easier to get shots out the back.

Having a roof overhead to block sun, wind, and rain, meanwhile, makes SUVs highly preferable to pickup trucks. It also keeps equipment cases safe when we go into town for lunch. Because a lot of car-to-car work happens from the cargo area, a soft suspension is a bonus, as well. The same shocks that allow the Wrangler to take big hits off-road also make it ride smoother when a photographer is trying to capture a sharp image.

Just as you wouldn’t use a hammer when the job calls for a screwdriver, the Wrangler isn’t perfect for all or even most car photography. When the shoot leaves the pavement and heads for the hills, though, you need a support vehicle as capable as the vehicles you’re trying to keep up with. As is often the case with the Wrangler’s talents, when you need them, you need them. Scott Evans

The Bronco is also more spacious, with more room between the driver and front passenger, and the rear seat feels like a living room next to the far cozier Jeep’s. In the 392, as in all Wranglers, the driver’s and front passenger’s shoulders are much closer together; Ford puts its extra room to good use by serving up more cubbies and bins to stuff your belongings into.

Lower-trim Broncos can feel chintzy inside, but the Raptor largely banishes that perception. The hard plastics on the door handles are wrapped with soft leather, and the leather and microsuede seats are a step up compared to the regular Bronco’s lower-grade upholstery. For $77,000, you expect to feel like you’re in something special, and for the most part you do. The $87K Wrangler Rubicon 392’s interior, however, isn’t any more notable than the one you’d find in a regular Rubicon. And the Ford’s interior is significantly quieter than the Jeep’s, though in these monsters that’s a relative assessment. Still, you can have a conversation in the Braptor without much issue.

After driving both SUVs back to back over different terrains, we didn’t have a clear winner. Each one is big fun, can

The Raptor’s hard top panels make the interior quieter than before and are easy to remove.

With its wide track and bulky fender flares, the Ford feels like a bigger animal than the Jeep, and you’ll especially notice it in parking lots.

sand-dunes

came

a halt after a

tire came off the rim; we were back in action after a swap.

anything in its path, and offers a distinct take on a rowdy off-roader. The Jeep is quicker and more nimble, and it sounds better. The Bronco, however, has a more versatile suspension, looks like nothing else, and is a nicer place to spend time.

Deciding the winner came down to value. We asked ourselves if the Wrangler 392 is $10,000 better than the Bronco Raptor, which keeps pace with or exceeds the Jeep in nearly every area. The Wrangler 392 is the off-roader that speaks louder, but the Bronco Raptor offers a slightly broader range of capabilities for less. And that makes the Ford our pick of this ridiculous—and ridiculously impressive—litter. Q

2ND PLACE JEEP WRANGLER 392

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS

DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT

2022 Ford Bronco Raptor

2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon 392

and big fun to

but it’s not $10,000 better.

1ST PLACE FORD BRONCO RAPTOR

Bronco Raptor matches or exceeds

Wrangler 392 in most ways, at a

price.

Front-engine,4WD

Front-engine,4WD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbodirect-injectedDOHC 24-valve60-degreeV-6,ironblock/ alumhead

Port-injectedOHV16-valve90-degree V-8,ironblock/alumheads

DISPLACEMENT 2,956cc/180.4cuin6,417cc/391.6cuin

COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1 10.9:1

POWER (SAE NET) 418hp@5,750rpm470hp@6,000rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 440lb-ft@2,750rpm470lb-ft@4,300rpm REDLINE 6,200rpm6,000rpm

WEIGHT TO POWER 13.7lb/hp 10.9lb/hp TRANSMISSION 10-speedautomatic8-speedautomatic

AXLE/FINAL DRIVE/ LOW RATIO 4.70:1/2.99:1/3.06:13.73:1/2.50:1/2.72:1

SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Controlarms,coilsprings,adjanti-roll bar;liveaxle,coilsprings

Liveaxle,coilsprings,adjanti-rollbar; liveaxle,coilsprings,anti-rollbar

STEERING RATIO 17.6:1 14.3:1

TURNS LOCK TO LOCK 3.2 3.1

BRAKES, F; R 13.8-inventeddisc;13.2-inventeddisc12.9-inventeddisc;13.6-inventeddisc WHEELS 8.5 x 17-in cast aluminum7.5 x 17-in cast aluminum

TIRES 37x12.50R17LTBFGoodrichAllTerrain T/ZK02BajaChampion(M+S) 285/70R17116/1130BFGoodrich All-TerrainT/AK02(M+S)

DIMENSIONS

WHEELBASE 116.5in118.4in

TRACK, F/R 73.2/73.6in64.4/64.4in

LENGTH X WIDTH X HEIGHT 191.0x85.7x77.8in188.4x73.8x74.5in

GROUND CLEARANCE 13.1in 10.3in APPROACH/DEPART ANGLE 47.2/40.5deg44.5/37.5deg TURNING CIRCLE 40.7ft39.4ft CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) 5,724lb(56/44%)5,122lb(54/46%) SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 40.8/40.1in40.8/40.3in LEGROOM, F/R 43.1/36.3in40.8/38.2in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 57.1/56.5in55.8/55.8in CARGO VOLUME, BEH F/R 73.0/33.4cuft67.4/27.7cuft TOWING CAPACITY 4,500lb3,500lb

MPH

Vaughn Gittin Jr. is a great passenger. You might know him better as a superlative driver and a peer to hard-charging, energydrink-hawking drift kings such as Tanner Foust, Ken Block, and Travis Pastrana. But should you ever find Gittin in your passenger seat, know that he’s as cool as a cucumber. I learned this when I spun his seven-motor, 1,400-hp electric mutant version of the Ford Mustang Mach-E on the infield track at Charlotte Motor Speedway.

The turn was a tight left up a crest, and although Gittin had already warned me there was a real possibility of lift-off oversteer, I still spun off the track and onto the lawn. “Don’t worry about it,” he said, easing my embarrassment. “I did the same thing earlier.” That’s probably how he knew his monster might do that.

We’ve covered the Mach-E 1400 prototype online, but for those who stick with print, here’s the 10,000foot view: Gittin’s Ford tuning house, RTR Vehicles, collaborated with Ford Performance to build an over-the-top, all-purpose hooning machine. Instead of two east/west motors as found in a normal Mustang Mach-E, the Mach-E 1400 has seven: three in front, four in back. Unlike most electric vehicles, the Mustang Mach-E 1400’s motors reside on a driveshaft and face north/south. Why? Turns out if you want to go drifting, you need to run all the power and torque through a differential. Additionally, with a diff, the gear ratios can be swapped out easily. This makes the car more than just a one-trick drift pony. For instance, the track configuration I drove had the rear diff set up with 130-mph gears, while the front diff was at 150 mph. For drifting, Gittin runs only the rear motors through an 85-mph set of gears. Also, the 1400 uses an 800-volt electric architecture versus the 400V system in pedestrian Mach-Es Performance EVs have two big problems. Batteries are heavy, for one. The other combined issue is that batteries run out of juice relatively quickly when driving flat out, and they take too long to recharge. Nobody has cracked the latter challenge yet, but RTR and Ford Performance came up with something novel to address the weight issue.

The 1400’s nickel-metal battery chemistry was chosen because it discharges as quickly as possible. When electricity discharges from a battery, it generates a relatively small amount of heat. However, when you flow electricity back into a bunch of cells, a lot of heat is

created, and the battery typically needs to be cooled, especially when we’re talking fast charging at high voltage.

How do you cool an electric car’s battery pack? With Gatorade! Fine, with electrolytes—salty, mineral-enriched water. But if you only need to cool the battery while the car is charging, why bother carrying the water and its weight on board? Instead, RTR and Ford Performance plug in a pump while charging. That way, the cooling liquid is never in the vehicle while it’s driving. That said, even with a relatively small (and liquid-free) 57-kWh battery, the 1400 still weighs about 5,000 pounds.

“You ever driven anything like this?” Gittin asked as I approached his car for

the first time. “Yes,” I replied. “I’ve driven Bugattis and Koenigseggs that make about this much power, as well as the 1,050- and 1,111-hp Lucid Airs.” He looked a touch taken aback. “But never on a track,” I added, trying not to come off too brazenly.

The Mustang Mach-E 1400 is quite roomy for a race car, perhaps its only real advantage to being based on a crossover SUV. Visibility is great, and once it’s in drive—accomplished by turning some knobs above your head—the controls could not be simpler: throttle, brakes, steering. That’s it. Well, there was a big, old, tempting dorifto handbrake, but I’d be out on a racetrack and not an empty parking lot, so I didn’t dare touch it.

Jonny Lieberman and Vaughn Gittin Jr. listen to last-minute safety instructions.

One nice thing about turning a crossover into a race car is how relatively easy both ingress and egress are.

Ford and RTR aren’t messing around. Rather than building a one-trick electric pony car, the duo has created a true performance weapon, functional aero and all.

I drove a bit timidly on my first lap because, hey, 1,400 hp is a big number. I noticed right away the Mustang Mach-E 1400 was more impressive when turning than when going straight, something I never would have guessed with such a powerful machine. Gearing the rear differential slightly slower than the front meant the thing was a bit tail happy, but enough torque still went to the front wheels to pull the 1400 smartly out of an apex. I pushed more on subsequent laps, but I’d never even thought about Charlotte Motor Speedway’s infield road course before, let alone driven it. So I spent too much time thinking, “Where the hell am I?” as opposed to evaluating the car. There were a few places where I could mash the accelerator and feel the full fury of all seven motors. I suspect if the shorter, 85-mph

gearset had been in place, the acceleration would have been even more explosive. As it was, the 1400 still proved ridic quick, rapidly closing the gap between points A and B. Still, you’d think 1,400 hp would feel quicker. Perhaps I’m a bit jaded.

Not completely, though, as the car’s grip bowled me over. I’ve never driven anything even close to this powerful on slick tires. I wish I’d been braver (and that I knew the circuit better), as the grip levels were outstanding. Suddenly the 1400 reminded me of another absolutely ridiculous vehicle I drove years ago: the insane Nissan Juke-R. There’s just something about both cars having a high seating position without much in the way of interiors.

One weird thing about the Ford: Due to power steering that isn’t up to par, when you’re off power, the steering thickens up. The effort increases by what seems like at least threefold. The instant you’re back on the pedal, the power steering system kicks back on. It’s completely odd, and Gittin assured me RTR is looking for a better solution, noting the 1400 is in uncharted territory. Sadly, as I racked up more and more laps, the steering got heavier and heavier when I came off the throttle.

Still, what a mad machine. Part of Gittin’s intent was to show the motorsports world that EVs are anything but boring. In that regard, he and his team and Ford Performance were wildly successful. Aside from the steering issue, is there anything I’d change? Yes, I’d go back to Charlotte with a much less powerful track car and spend a day or two learning the circuit. I know the Mustang Mach-E 1400 has a lot more left in it that I’d like to exploit. Which is a grown-up way of saying, “Again! Again! Again!”

Little remains of the production Mustang Mach-E beyond the body; virtually everything else has been set up for high-performance driving.

MT

There’s a lot to love about driving a hydrogen-fueled car, but the infrastructure challenges are real.

Mirai

Service Life 11 mo/11,083 mi Avg Fuel Econ 67.2 mpg-e

“After months of procrastination, we finally tackle the Mirai’s biggest challenge: a road trip.” Aaron Gold

Unresolved problems None Maintenance cost $0 (2x inspection, tire rotation; in-cabin air filter) Normal wear $14.99 (wiper blade) Base price $50,495 As tested $52,330 EPA fuel econ 76/71/74 mpg-e

We’ve been talking about taking a road trip in the Mirai since first receiving the car, yet we kept putting it off. Truth is, as much as we (mostly) love hydrogen motoring, long-distance driving is a daunting prospect. You think range anxiety in an EV is bad? Most of the country’s publicly accessible hydrogen fueling stations are in California, clustered around the greater metro areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Between them, stations are few and far between, and given our experiences with broken stations, you can understand my hesitancy to leave the safe harbor of L.A.

But with the end of the loan looming, I realized I could wait no more, so I set out from my home in the San Fernando Valley for a trip to see my cousin in beautiful Santa Cruz, 329 miles to the north. Theoretically, this is well within the Mirai’s advertised 402-mile range— but 11 months with the Mirai has taught me reality is often a long way from theory.

I faced two primary problems: First, in my experience, the Mirai’s real-world range is closer to 375 miles—and that’s if the filling station gives me a full tank, which it doesn’t always. Second, Santa Cruz isn’t really 329 miles away in a fuel cell car, because it has no hydrogen filling stations. I’d first have to go 30 miles farther north to San Jose to fill up before turning back south to L.A.. Also, unless

I converted the Mirai to a boat, I can’t get to Santa Cruz without climbing some serious hills, which would further tax range.

Driving the Mirai 359 miles over hilly terrain is a stretch. To do the journey comfortably, I’d need to refuel on the way, and there are only two stations between Tinseltown and the Bay Area. Like anyone else doing the L.A.-to-Bay run, you can choose the slower but more scenic coastal route, with a fuel stop in Santa Barbara, or the quicker but duller inland route up Interstate 5, with a fuel station midway at Coalinga. Whichever way I chose, if my midpoint station wasn’t working, I’d either face a long diversion to the other station or have to seriously consider turning back—because if the alternate station was also broken, I’d be stuck.

For the trip up, I opted for the coastal route. I figured I’d avoid the steep 4,144-foot climb up I-5’s Tejon Pass (known as the Grapevine to locals), and the sea breeze would mean less reliance on the range-sapping air conditioner. As a hedge, I fueled up in Thousand Oaks, just north of L.A., but I need not have worried; the Santa Barbara station was working just fine, and I left it with 345 miles of range—plenty for the 250-mile run to Santa Cruz and onward to San Jose. Or so I thought.

I hadn’t traveled the Pacific Coast Highway since before the pandemic, and it turns out the sea-level route isn’t as level as I remember it. PCH snakes up and down the dazzling cliffs that line the ocean, and there are a lot of hills to climb. I was bucking headwinds, and I’d forgotten about the coast gawkers who like to drive 25 mph in the 55 zones. I had to pass two of them, using up precious range. And although I mostly enjoyed the cool breezes, it was warm enough that I needed to switch on the A/C from time to time.

All of this conspired to lower my average fuel economy to 65 mpg-e, far less than the low 70s we usually see at home—never mind the Mirai’s 74-mpg-e combined EPA rating. By the time I made it to Santa Cruz, I had 57 miles of range left, meaning my 250-mile trip had used 288 miles’ worth of hydrogen. The next morning, I headed for San Jose, which, as luck would have it, lies on the other side of a steep hill. Before I crested it, the Mirai’s low fuel warning lit up big and bright on the dash.

Happily, there are several stations in San Jose, and the first one I stopped at was in service. I pulled in with 30 miles of range remaining and got a so-so fill-up—good for just 338 miles, dropping to just over 300 with the A/C switched on. Because hydrogen is a gaseous fuel, you can’t top off like you can with a liquid fuel. I tried it anyway; I drove 13 miles round-trip to a local model train shop (where I nabbed a great deal on some HO-scale passenger cars) then returned to the station to refill. The car took barely a whiff of hydrogen, and I left with 334 miles of range. Cue the sad trombones.

For my return trip, I chose the inland route through the orange groves on Interstate 5, which cuts through California’s hot central valley and has a single hydrogen station right around the midway point. I had good reason to hope it was working: Coalinga is home to a thriving cattle industry, and the air is perfumed with a scent far less pleasant than your average rose. Turns out the Mirai was more efficient for this 140-mile leg than I expected: Despite cruising at the 70-mph speed limit, I averaged 77 mpg-e and used just 110 miles of indicated range for the 140-mile journey to the hydrogen station.

Rolling into Coalinga, I had 220 miles of range remaining; Los Angeles’ northernmost station, in Mission Hills, was only 180 miles away, which meant I might have been able

to make it home without stopping. I still had the Grapevine ahead of me, though, and the Coalinga station was functioning just fine. Besides, I’ve learned to treat hydrogen stations like bathrooms: Never pass a working one without using it. A four-minute fill-up gave me 349 miles of indicated range. I left the cow-scented air to the slow-charging battery electric vehicles also refilling at the stop and put Coalinga in my rearview mirror.

Although the Mirai’s powerful electric motor will happily rocket over steep grades like the Grapevine at 80-plus, I decided to take

it easy and follow the 60-mph speed limit for the uphill run. I used a lot of hydrogen climbing the hill and very little descending; I reset the trip computer at Coalinga, and when I got to the foot of the Grapevine, I was averaging 70 mpg-e. That dropped to 60 mpg-e when I crested the hill, but by the time I got to the bottom, it was back up to 68 mpg-e—much better than the fuel economy I saw on the coastal route.

Point being, I had enough fuel in the tank to violate my hydrogen station/bathroom rule and cruise right past Mission Hills to home, where I parked with 135 miles of range remaining.

All in all, the trip was easier than I expected. I didn’t get stuck, and had I taken I-5 both ways, I might not even have needed that intermediate stop. With Coalinga working, I could have blasted the A/C and run hell-for-leather with no problems—but given what I know about station reliability, that wouldn’t have been a smart idea. That’s the problem with traveling today’s hydrogen highway: the stress. Unlike gasoline or increasingly electricity, if a hydrogen station

isn’t working, there won’t be another one just down the block. But that’s the fault of the fledgling (and still largely experimental) hydrogen fueling infrastructure, not the Mirai.

Would a battery-powered electric car have made the trip less stressful? Yes, as there are more chargers, but it probably would have been a lot slower. One of Toyota’s selling points for the Mirai is quick fill-ups, and that’s a promise fulfilled. The Mirai is effectively an electric car that can charge from 0 to 350-plus miles of range in three to five minutes. Even the fast-charging Hyundai Ioniq 5 takes 18 minutes to get from 10 to 80 percent, and an additional 20 or 30 minutes to get all the way to 100 percent—and all that is if you can find a 350-kW charger that is both working and not being used by some dunderhead who doesn’t realize his Mustang Mach-E can only charge at 150 kW.

With a more robust fueling infrastructure, travel in the Mirai would be a no-brainer— smooth, silent, and nearly as clean as an EV, but with the fueling speed of a gasoline car. Unfortunately, I don’t think the infrastructure will expand any time soon.

RIVIAN

Kia Sorento

I

must admit: Sometimes, I feel sorry for the Rogue. That’s not because it’s incapable; in fact, the small SUV has proved to be a practical family hauler over the past several months. It’s just that it has endured some unfortunate toddler abuse, and with another baby on the way, things aren’t going to get much better any time soon. Although some stains were a bit difficult to clean, the Rogue’s seats now look as good as new.

I also feel bad that the Rogue doesn’t see much excitement. Instead of spontaneous trips to the beach or rock climbing excur sions, the Nissan has instead been a faithful companion on more mundane daily drives. Sure, every once in a while it has had the chance to get its tires dirty, but when doing so its robust air conditioning gets more of a workout than its all-wheel drive does. The Rogue has grown used to the soundtrack of a noisy toddler rather than rolling waves or a vibrant mountain landscape.

There’s a notable exception to the lack of excitement. Every month or two, my family and I take a trip from Nevada to Southern California. This 270-mile journey really reveals the Rogue’s true character.

On my latest such trek to the coast, I went longer stretches without stopping and made shorter stops, as my little one was being particularly squirrelly that day. The seats proved comfortable during these long periods, even with my touchy back, and adaptive cruise control provided breathing room to occasionally relax a bit. Although I wish the Rogue had more power for merging, I had no problem passing other cars on the freeway, even with cargo in the back.

In AWD guise, the Rogue’s fuel economy is on par with comparable Honda CR-Vs and Toyota RAV4s. Our Rogue can travel 406 miles between fill-ups, according to the EPA. In reality, though, I’m filling up after every 300 to 350 miles at best. That’s plenty of range for my long road trips, but the long-term Sonata I chaperoned for a year could travel noticeably farther on a tank of gas. Of course, it wasn’t nearly as spacious as the Rogue, which has no problem swallowing up a week or two’s worth of gear for two adults and a kiddo.

I

t’s not uncommon for acquaintances and other motorists to comment positively on any new Kia we drive. We typically reply with, “Yeah, Kia’s really stepped up its game in the last decade,” or a quip that similarly distances its rickety econoblobs of yesteryear from the solid, stylish vehicles it builds today. See the Sorento for evidence: The model on sale now is better than its predecessors in every way. As for our long-term Sorento SX, this made-in-the-USA SUV is proving to be as high-quality as when—wait, what’s that noise?

First, though, our Sorento has received two services at about 7,000mile intervals, for which we visited the local Kia dealership. The process proved straightforward. After booking online, we arrived and handed over the keys for a few hours. Work completed during both visits was as routine as could be—oil changed, filters swapped, tires rotated. However, during the second visit, the dealer recommended we purchase an enhanced fuel system cleaning service. Rather than spend the proposed $300 on the spot, we declined so we could research what it entailed.

After finding no solidly convincing answers, a Kia customer care representative eventually told us, “The only maintenance required is what is listed in the owner’s manual.” Given our manual listed only fuel system inspec tions as necessary and the service was pitched pre-inspection, we didn’t return to get it. So far, that decision has had no tangible effect.

Rather, our Sorento feels as vivacious as ever, remaining enjoyable as an around-towner or, as is equally common, a long-distance cruiser. But as the 20,000-mile mark approached, it gained a mildly irksome tendency it didn't have when new: Slight creaking noises now emanate from around the cabin. They’re mostly audible at low speeds, particularly when the body takes torsional loads, such as traversing a driveway diagonally. Perhaps the giant hole in the structure that Kia cut to fit the sweet panoramic sunroof compromises overall rigidity, and, indeed, most of the creaks come from within the headliner.

“Time to dig into the Rogue’s road-trip experience.” Kelly Lin

“It always pays (or can at least save you some cash) to read the freakin’ manual.” Alex Leanse

Volvo touts the XC40 as a compact SUV “designed for life in the city and beyond.” And if you hope to take along your bicycle when you go beyond the city, then you have options.

A decent array of accessory bicycle carriers are available, but we first wanted to see if we could stuff a bike in the cargo area in a pinch. We were skeptical. But after we folded down the rear seats, removed the cargo shade, and moved the passenger-side front seat forward a tad, a medium-size Cannondale Topstone gravel bike lay secure without having to remove its front wheel. The rear bumper’s metal sill protector was greatly appreciated during this awkward process.

A more ideal solution, especially if you have more than one bike to transport, would be to opt for an external bicycle carrier. Volvo offers two dealer-installed options, both sourced from Thule. The roof-mounted rack is the cheaper option, but it maxes out at two bikes and can be awkward to load.

We decided to try the tow-hitchmounted rack, which carries up to four bikes, is easier to load, creates less aero drag, and poses no clearance issues. The rack includes integrated anti-theft solutions for itself and your bicycles, and the straps that secure the bikes were also easy to use. The rack tilts back if you need to access the rear cargo area, but unfortunately that function doesn’t work while it’s loaded with bicycles. You’ll need to take extra caution when you parallel park because the rack extends out 4 feet and also prevents the parking sensors from working properly.

Volvo’s dealer-installed option costs $500, slightly more than a similar rack purchased directly from Thule, and requires a tow hitch, which will set you back $1,295 (not including labor). On the upside, you’ll now have the option to use the XC40 as a tow rig. Just keep the load less than 3,500 pounds.

“Dealer-installed accessories can be attractive, but are they worth it?” Erick Ayapana

Verdict: 2021 Chevrolet Corvette Z51

“More than a year behind the wheel of a midengine Corvette has proven to us it’s all the car you need.”

Scott Evans

Base Price $67,295 As Tested $80,420

OPTIONS Z51 Performance pack ($5,995: 3.55:1 axle ratio, elec limited-slip differential, rear spoiler, heavy-duty cooling, performance suspension, brakes, tires, and exhaust); front lift w/ memory ($1,995); magnetorheological dampers ($1,895); GT2 bucket seats ($1,495); red brake calipers ($595); composite rockers ($550); premium paint ($500); carbon flash side mirrors ($100) Problem Areas None Maintenance Cost $400.69 (2x inspection, oil change) Normal Wear $2,062 (set of tires) 3-Year Residual Value* $96,800 (120%) Recalls Rear halfshaft assembly, airbag malfunction indicator

*IntelliChoice data; assumes 42,000 miles at the end of three years.

Service Life 13 months/16,512 miles Average Fuel Econ 17.0 mpg

More than a few automakers have tried to build a supercar you can drive every day without much compromise. Those efforts, whether cleansheet or adapting an existing car, have rarely succeeded. There’s truth behind the saying “a jack of all trades and master of none.” Something’s gotta give. In the case of the Corvette Z51—our 2020 Car of the Year—that something isn’t as big as you might think.

Yes, we’re really going to stand here and tell you a Corvette is the only car you need. Within reason, of course. People with kids

or who regularly transport plywood will need another set of wheels. Everyone else? Get a ’Vette.

See, we did about everything you could think of with this Corvette. Eighthundred-mile road trips? Several times. Bring home the Christmas tree? Tied to the roof. Off-road? Google Maps sent us on a shortcut that turned out to be a poorly maintained dirt road, and we made it without damage. Hardware store? Done it. Grocery shopping? Every week. Beat a Porsche Cayman GT4 around a racetrack? Yep, while costing nearly $47,000 less.

Sure, there were a few times the thing we needed to move was too big. On those occasions, we handed the local big-box store $20 and rented a pickup for an hour or had it delivered. Problem solved, and for a lot less money than owning a second vehicle.

We could do all this because the Corvette really is as practical as it is a superlative performer. With a trunk, a frunk, and a removable roof, hauling most stuff home was no big deal. Neither was taking it all on vacation: We just packed multiple smaller bags instead of one big one.

Whether it was running down the street or crossing half the state, the C8’s combination of class-leading ride quality, unusually comfortable sport seats, and high-speed stability made a drive of any length easy. Set to My mode—customized with better brake feel, loud exhaust, soft shocks, and light steering—the car absolutely ate up miles. Should you happen to be on a deadstraight rural highway with no other car in sight, it’ll happily cruise at 100 mph for hours at a time without beating you up in the slightest.

Occasionally, you’ll have to slow down for big bumps, be they on a dirt road or pulling into your own steep driveway. When you do, the nose lift with GPS tagging is an absolute must-have. We stopped

The Corvette’s interior is immensely comfortable. We’d like to see a few buttons and plugs moved, but the big things are done right.

taking chances altogether and just raised the nose any time we came across what looked like might be trouble. Tagging all the spots in our neighborhoods and around the office made commuting much less stressful.

The car also does Corvette things really, really well. Like putting that Cayman GT4 in its place. Or hitting 60 mph in 3.1 seconds (we’ve tested other C8s as quick as 2.8) and embarrassing cars with significantly more power and fatter MSRPs. It was also great for tearing up local canyon roads whenever the mood struck.

The only thing that made driving this car even better was putting it in track alignment and leaving it there. Not only did it make for better lap times, but it also made the steering more responsive and communicative. True, it wore out the tires in less than 10,000 miles, but it was worth it. Well, worth it to the tune of about $2,000 for tires and mounting/balancing by our friends at ZipTire. Maintaining supercars ain’t cheap.

Comparatively, though, the Corvette is pretty affordable to fix. The one service appointment we paid for set us back just $183. (A second service we didn’t pay for would have cost about $220 out of pocket.) That’s significantly less than the average luxury car service (usually well over $200 per visit) though a lot more than our long-term 2015 C7 Corvette Z51, which came with complimentary maintenance for the first few years and didn’t cost us a dime aside from tires. As it happened, the front trunk stopped opening right around the time the C8 needed service, which required ordering a new opener and returning 12 days later to have it installed, but that was covered under warranty along with a pair of minor recalls. Our C7 Corvette was a bit more trouble-prone than our C8.

Although nothing else needed to be fixed, we have a few suggestions for Chevrolet when the midcycle update comes around. We don’t hate the long row of

climate-control buttons down the center console, but we agree the ergonomics need improvement; it creates a wall for the passenger to reach over. While Chevy is rearranging all that, it can also move the wireless phone charger from behind your elbow to somewhere easier to reach. A set of hooks on the ceiling behind the seats to hang your jacket wouldn’t hurt, either. It’s not like you can see out the back window anyway. More heat insulation in the rear trunk would also be great.

Outside, it would be nice if Chevy could figure out a way to keep rainwater pooled on the hood and decklid from pouring into the front and rear trunks when you open them. It would also be nice if it could slim down the decorative side blades. They’re mounted on the widest parts of the door and are the first thing to hit the car parked next to you. Shaving them would make it easier to squeeze in the door when someone parks too close.

Those are little fixes that would make us happy, but they’re hardly deal breakers. Thoughtful features like the hood release hidden under the headlight, the downward-facing front cameras, and automatic proximity locking mitigate most of our other gripes.

On a regular basis, our friends and co-workers post photos of cars they’ve seen parked next to each other in the wild with a caption like “ultimate two-car garage.” Great if you can’t pick just one car and have money to spend on multiple. If you can live with just two seats, though, you don’t need a two-car solution. The C8 Corvette is the ultimate one-car garage. Q

Chevrolet Corvette

DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Mid-engine, RWD

ENGINE TYPE 90-deg direct-injected V-8, alum block/heads

VALVETRAIN OHV, 2 valves/cyl

DISPLACEMENT 376.0 cu in/6,162cc

COMPRESSION RATIO 11.5:1

POWER (SAE NET) 495 hp @ 6,450 rpm

TORQUE (SAE NET) 470 lb-ft @ 5,150 rpm

REDLINE 6,400 rpm

WEIGHT TO POWER 7.4 lb/hp

TRANSMISSION 8-speed twin-clutch auto AXLE/FINAL DRIVE RATIO 3.55:1/1.71:1

SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar

STEERING RATIO 12.5–15.7:1

TURNS LOCK TO LOCK 2.3

BRAKES, F; R 13.6-in vented disc; 13.8-in vented disc

WHEELS, F; R 8.5 x 19-in; 11.0 x 20-in cast aluminum

TIRES, F; R 245/35R19 89Y; 305/30R20 99Y Michelin Pilot Sport 4S

DIMENSIONS

WHEELBASE 107.2 in

TRACK, F/R 64.9/62.4 in

LENGTH X WIDTH X HEIGHT 182.3 x 76.1 x 48.6 in TURNING CIRCLE 36.4 ft CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,643 lb (40/60%)

SEATING CAPACITY 2

HEADROOM, F/R 37.9 in LEGROOM, F/R 42.8 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 54.4 in CARGO VOLUME 4.0 (frunk)/8.6 (trunk) cu ft

TEST DATA

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 1.3 sec 0-40 1.8 0-50 2.4 0-60 3.1 0-70 4.0 0-80 5.0 0-90 6.2 0-100 7.6 0-100-0 11.4

PASSING, 45-65 MPH 1.5

QUARTER MILE 11.4 sec @ 120.4 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 99 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.01 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT 23.4 sec @ 0.86 g (avg)

TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,300 rpm

CONSUMER INFO

BASE PRICE $67,295

PRICE AS TESTED $80,420

4: Dual front, front side/ head

BASIC WARRANTY 3 years/36,000 miles

POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 years/60,000 miles

ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 years/60,000 miles

FUEL CAPACITY 18.5 gal

CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 15/27/19 mpg

RANGE, COMB 352 miles

FUEL Unleaded

The Big Picture

Hyundai is on fire right now. Its growth has been steady and relentless for decades, following a path well worn by Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi. It’s easy to think we’ve seen it all before—and we have. Mostly. But Hyundai Motor Group’s next chapter looks strikingly different from that of its Japanese rivals.

At the absolute height of their power, Japan’s automakers had the world at their feet. GM and Ford and Chrysler were stumbling and failing as customers they once took for granted switched to buying cheaper Japanese imports that were better equipped and more reliable. Japanese cars had, for the same reasons, all but forced Fiat, Renault, Peugeot, and Volkswagen to abandon markets outside of Europe.

At the 1989 Tokyo auto show, strolling past cars like the Lexus LS400, Honda NSX, Z32 Nissan 300ZX, Subaru SVX, Mazda Miata, and Mitsubishi Eclipse, it was easy to believe the Japanese were masters of the automotive universe. But Japan Inc. blew it. Today, only Toyota is considered a Japanese automotive superpower, propelled by the same inertia that kept GM at the top decades after it ceased to be a benchmark carmaker.

Right now, Hyundai Motor Co. looks to be on a much loftier trajectory than its Japanese rivals. This is not only because the number of models offered across its Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis brands easily rivals the Japanese majors. Nor is it because it already has plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell powertrains in production and on sale in various global markets while some Japanese automakers are still figuring out which way to jump.

No. What’s significant is that Hyundai is developing an understanding of the soft side of the business the Japanese, for all their undoubted manufacturing skills, never quite seemed able to grasp.

The most obvious example is seen in the execution of the Genesis luxury lineup. The gasoline-powered models all ride on unique premium rear-drive platforms rather than being obviously gussied-up versions of cheaper cars, like far too many Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura models.

Hyundai understands the reality where discerning customers want true luxury built into the cars they buy, not added on.

Then there’s design. Most people will struggle to name the head of design for any Japanese automaker, apart from perhaps Nissan’s Alfonso Albaisa. They are invisible, like ciphers in suits who say nothing and are seen nowhere. The only reasonable conclusion says, for most Japanese automakers, design simply isn’t considered especially important. And it shows in Japanese cars and SUVs that too often look fussy and incoherent.

The visual sophistication of today’s crop of Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis cars is because Hyundai design chief Luc Donckerwolke has a clear point of view on how they should look. What’s more, he and his senior design execs, such as SangYup Lee, are empowered to articulate their point of view, not just to automotive media but also internally in the hard-nosed horse-trading that’s invariably part and parcel of every vehicle’s development process. Hyundai’s burgeoning N division also suggests the company understands what performance vehicles can do for its brands. Japanese companies are perfectly capable of engineering truly stunning performance products; for evidence, you need look no further than the Honda/Acura NSX, Nissan GT-R, and Lexus LFA. But history shows they launched those vehicles into a vacuum, did little with them, and, when customer interest waned, left them to wither and die, their fans gnashing their teeth in frustration.

Toyota is belatedly attempting to rectify past mistakes with its GR brand, but Hyundai already has many more fast, affordable, and fun-to-drive N-brand cars on the market around the world, and by next year it will have N performance EVs on sale, as well. “High performance emotionalizes cars and people,” says N brand boss Till Wartenberg, who now heads the division established by former BMW M boss Albert Biermann. But here’s the real kicker: “The N cars are the most profitable vehicles in the company.”

Yep, Hyundai’s hot right now. Move over, Japan. Q

Authentic luxury, performance excellence, and attentive design work have fueled Hyundai’s rise.

Here’s why Hyundai is the world’s hottest automaker. Look out, Japan.

Protect your small business from