#first tests

2017 Land Rover Discovery First Test: Civilized Beast

In a field of SUVs, the fifth-generation Land Rover Discovery can literally crawl up and over the hoods of the rest of the field. It might have abandoned the body-on-frame construction of its LR4 predecessor, but don’t for a minute underestimate the capability of its new aluminum unibody construction atop a steel frame. And the buyer has an intriguing choice. The 2017 Land Rover Discovery Td6 HSE has a 3.0-liter turbodiesel V-6 putting out 254 horsepower, and the icing is the 443 lb-ft of torque at 1,750 rpm. The Discovery Si6 HSE also has a 3.0-liter, but it is a supercharged gasoline V-6, and it generates more horsepower at 340 but less torque at 332 lb-ft. Both have an eight-speed automatic transmission. Which is quicker? The gas engine is quicker off the line, beating the diesel at all points to 60 mph, which it reaches in 6.1 seconds—the diesel takes a sluggish 8.7 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph. Will more runway help? No. The gas-engine Discovery does the quarter mile in 14.7 seconds at 89.7 mph, and the turbodiesel reaches the finish line in 16.6 seconds at 83.6 mph. The turbodiesel has a stopping distance from 60 mph in 133 feet, and the gas engine needs 137 feet. Both variants feel powerful, and there is a sensation of sitting on a throne with the ride height and what seem to be miles of glass for viewing your subjects. The diesel acceleration is more seamless. The transmission shifts more smoothly, whereas the Si6 had a tendency to lurch after a stop sign. The turbodiesel is also quieter, and it even feels like the SUV rides better. Steering is precise and responsive. In terms of handling on the figure eight, the two performed similarly. The turbodiesel completes the lap in 29.0 seconds with average lateral acceleration of 0.59 g, and the gas engine is a tenth of a second faster. The consensus is the Discovery handles well for a vehicle of its size and weight, but road test editor Chris Walton felt it would tip over around tight corners. The Td6 is heavier, weighing in at 5,582 pounds, which is 109 more than the Si6. But keep in mind this generation has dropped more than 1,000 pounds over its predecessor. Despite its diesel grunt, the Td6 tows 7,716 pounds, and the Si6 can tow 8,201 pounds. Walton was not alone in his concern for the loud shakes and shudders on uneven pavement on a road loop in the Si6, which rode on larger tires. Others applauded the air suspension for floating over rough roads and treating a jump like a speed bump and a railroad crossing like a ripple in the pavement. A nice feature is that the lane keeping assist is selectable, separate from lane warning, and remains on even if cruise control is not active. But it is hard to find—you use the steering wheel controls to scroll through to safety features and select it. And it is not the best system; it allows the wheels to cross the line. Off-road, the Discovery has few peers. The auto terrain response automatically adjusts to the terrain; it recognized it had moved to deep sand, and it was like it got a second wind, features editor Christian Seabaugh noted. Inside, the cabin feels premium. “I really like the material choices in here,” technical director Frank Markus said. “The graining and textures are sort of nontraditional. There is a pebble grain on a soft-touch leatherette type material. On the top there is what looks like a wire mesh under a gold tent varnish, which is an interesting replacement for wood, and then there is brushed metal trim surrounding the center console.” There are three rows of quite comfortable seats, 21 seating configurations, and a number of motors to make the power adjustments. But moving seats and headrests can seem to take an interminable amount of time. The third-row seats cannot be raised without removing the privacy shade, which is bit tricky, and even then it is not easy to climb into the very back. There are a lot of clever storage areas, the best being the hidden compartment behind the HVAC controls. The infotainment system is much improved, but the volume button is situated on the passenger side, making it hard to reach—handy for the right-hand-drive Discos in the U.K. but not so much for the rest of the world. The base price for the Discovery with a diesel is $66,945, but our tester stickered for $80,150. The Si6 has a base price of $64,945, and ours was sufficiently loaded to bring it to $82,850. We were divided on whether the base diesel is worth the extra cost. And we are divided on whether this premium Land Rover is a grand idea or a misstep for the brand. With its white leather chairs and orange piping, Markus noted it is hard to draw the line back to the SUV’s Born Free safari-ready roots. With so many models that appeal to the luxury SUV buyer, why does this one have to go in that direction? The answer will come soon enough when the new Defender family makes its much anticipated return. Because the test surface we used for this review is a mere month old (and still curing), our braking and handling results show longer stopping distances and less grip than we typically record and report. With that in mind, this vehicle’s numbers are not necessarily comparable with previous or future test results. 2017 Land Rover Discovery Si6 HSE (Luxury) 2017 Land Rover Discovery Td6 HSE (Luxury) BASE PRICE $64,945 $66,945 PRICE AS TESTED $82,850 $80,150 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV Front-engine, 4WD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV ENGINE 3.0L/340-hp/332-lb-ft supercharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 3.0L/254-hp/443-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 24-valve V-6 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 5,473 lb (47/53%) 5,582 lb (47/53%) WHEELBASE 115.1 in 115.1 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 195.7 x 81.6 x 71.1-75.6 in 195.7 x 81.6 x 71.1-75.6 in 0-60 MPH 6.1 sec 8.7 sec QUARTER MILE 14.7 sec @ 89.7 mph 16.6 sec @ 83.6 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 137 ft 133 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.69 g (avg) 0.72 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.9 sec @ 0.58 g (avg) 29.0 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 16/21/18 mpg 21/26/23 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 211/160 kW-hrs/100 miles 180/145 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.08 lb/mile 0.97 lb/mile The post 2017 Land Rover Discovery First Test: Civilized Beast appeared first on Motor Trend.

Exclusive 2018 Kia Stinger GT First Test: Well Stung

The concept of “grand touring” has been around for centuries, and the moniker has been applied to cars since the 1940s, but it’s a term we tend to associate with exotic sports cars. The formula, though, is pretty simple: stylish, comfortable on a long drive, and plenty of power. But there’s no rule that says it has to cost a fortune, and the Kia Stinger GT is absolutely taking advantage of this exception. We’ve driven prototypes at an overseas R & D complex, on a frozen Swedish lake, and on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Now, finally, we’ve driven a production-spec 2018 Kia Stinger GT on real roads and to our own Auto Club Speedway test track. How does it fare against the German luxury sedans against which it will undoubtedly be compared? Korean-branded cars usually aren’t synonymous with performance, but the rear-drive Stinger GT launches from 0 to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and clocks the standing quarter mile in 13.3 seconds at 106.9 mph. An emergency stop from 60 mph requires 113 feet, and it’ll pull 0.85 average lateral g on a skidpad. On our exclusive figure-eight test track, the Stinger GT recorded a lap of 26.2 seconds at 0.71 average lateral g. Impressive numbers. It’s pretty good to drive away from the test track, too. Out in the mountains, the Stinger GT exhibits a surprising but intriguing combination of vertical compliance and lateral stiffness. Over bumps, the suspension was soft and the ride of luxury-car quality. In the corners, though, it was stiff with excellent body control. Even when pushing hard, the Stinger GT rode well but dug into corners with little body roll. The power is well-matched to the vehicle and only feels inadequate if you let the revs drop too low. You want those turbochargers working for you, and the best way to do it is to take advantage of the paddle shifters because the transmission isn’t quite aggressive enough for the really twisty roads. “The engine has a fat torque curve, strong in midrange with noticeable lag at the bottom end,” our staff professional racer, Randy Pobst, said during filming for an episode of Ignition—which you can watch right now at Motor Trend OnDemand and YouTube.com/motortrend. “Low revs mean calling ahead and waiting for the power to be delivered. The Stinger is quite powerful, and one must constantly remind oneself that this is a Kia that is tearing up this winding road or on-ramp.” Randy’s critique continued: “The transmission is just not sport-smart enough in automatic, especially on the track. It shifts up, so I just let it. There’s no reason for me to pull that paddle. I just have to remember to downshift on the way in, or else it won’t. The shifting is reasonable. It matches revs. It’s quick.” It’s hard to say whether the transmission programming has changed since I drove a prototype on the Nürburgring or if our mountain roads and the Streets of Willow Springs racetrack are so much tighter that it amplifies the transmission’s inadequacy, but my initial impressions were more positive. As well as we know the Stinger GT can drift in the right conditions, it doesn’t actually want to get wild out in the real world. The suspension tuning is conservative, the default behavior at the limit understeer. It makes the car very stable, never trying to swap ends no matter how hard you drive it. Thankfully, there’s a lot of grip in the front end, so you have to push it very hard to get it to plow. Just driving fast, it feels neutral. You need to be pushing your braking points to the last second and carrying as much speed as possible into a corner to make it cry uncle. Here again, I wonder if the American-market tuning increases understeer versus the European-spec car I drove. Or maybe Randy just carries that much more speed in the corners. It’s probably the latter. The upshot: You’ll never feel a stability control intervention. “What they’ve done is create stability control by tuning the car for a lot of understeer in the middle of a corner,” Randy said. That’s not to say it won’t drift. Turn the computer off, give it a Scandinavian flick and too much throttle, and it’ll do a nice power oversteer or two. It’s just not a hoon by nature. “It seems that the stability control is always learning and adapting,” Randy said. “Even with it turned off, it became more and more invasive as the day wore on, and the wheelspin and sliding woke up the nannies that watch over us hooligans. After a few nice drifts, the car began to resolutely resist power oversteer—a darned shame and frustrating.” In other words, this is a grand touring sedan that actually takes its GT badge seriously. Out on the highway, it’s everything you want on a road trip. It floats over bad pavement while remaining taut and responsive on long, sweeping corners. In a world of Demons and Hellcats, 365 hp might not seem like a lot, but it’s plenty when applied correctly. The in-house eight-speed auto is programmed smartly for real-world conditions, delivering downshifts with little prodding. With the revs up and the turbos spinning, the engine delivers a pleasant surge of power that whisks you past trucks and loafers. It’s a very easy and comfortable car to cover distance in. “The springs and shocks that control vertical motion are quite soft,” Randy said. “But transitional responses are quite well-controlled, likely by relatively strong anti-roll bars, and the ride is still quite compliant. Think ‘older Buick’ ride quality. Surprising for a sport sedan like this.” It’s not just comfortable from the driver’s seat, either. The Kia has 2 to 4 inches of wheelbase over the Germans, and it puts them to good use. There’s ample rear-seat legroom and, despite the sloping roof, headroom for tall people. The front seats, meanwhile, are aggressively bolstered so you can concentrate on those mountain roads when you cross their path. Capable though it may be from seat to steering, and despite testing it on the Nürburgring, Kia insists the Stinger GT isn’t a track car. We took it to a track anyway, and things got complicated. Kia’s press cars at the moment are all preproduction prototypes, and the first car they gave us suffered a power steering failure and had to be replaced. The second car, as it turns out, hadn’t yet had its U.S.-spec springs and dampers installed, and it exhibited considerably more body roll and understeer on the track than the first car. As a result, Randy posted a lap time—1:28.90—that he felt wasn’t representative of what the car could do. With a properly equipped car, Randy believes he could subtract a full second. Things that didn’t change on track: the car’s weight and its braking performance—113 feet isn’t anywhere near a record in our 60–0-mph braking test, but it only tells part of the story. Randy was continually impressed at the durability of the brakes. Throughout a very hot day, the pedal remained consistent, and the steel brakes refused to fade. “The brakes are impressively strong, with a consistent and firm pedal feel that inspires confidence,” he said. “The braking does not upset the chassis, and the pad compound can take the heat.” There will be heat, and not just from the brakes. The Stinger GT is taking on a wildly competitive segment ruled by a small in-crowd. Whether it’s staring down the German triumvirate or the American holdouts, the sport sedan from the value brand has a lot to prove. “For a first effort at a genuine sport sedan, the Stinger is quite an accomplishment,” Randy said. “It clearly is set up for a comfortable ride as a priority over race car dynamics, but in the real world, this makes sense. Even more so among buyers of a big, powerful GT car.” Like no Korean car before it, the Stinger GT speaks the language of the enthusiast. Will they listen? 2018 Kia Stinger GT BASE PRICE $40,000 (est) PRICE AS TESTED $50,000 (est) VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan ENGINE 3.3L/365-hp/376-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 24-valve V-6 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,005 lb (52/48%) WHEELBASE 114.1 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 190.2 x 73.6 x 55.1 in 0-60 MPH 4.8 sec QUARTER MILE 13.3 sec @ 106.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 113 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.85 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.2 sec @ 0.71 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON Not Tested How does the Stinger stack up? How good are the Kia’s performance numbers for a 365-hp 3.3-liter twin-turbo V-6 with 376 lb-ft of torque and a roughly $40,000 starting price? They seem all right when you consider the Stinger GT falls between a midsize and full-size sedan in dimension and weighs 4,005 pounds. Making a direct comparison is trickier because it’s hard to say exactly what the Stinger competes with. The Chevrolet SS was the most obvious spoiler, but it’s out of production. It started at about $48,000, hit 60 mph in 4.7 seconds, ran a quarter mile in 13.2 seconds at 108.9 mph, stopped from 60 in 108 feet, pulled 0.94 g average on the skidpad, and posted a 24.7-second figure-eight lap at 0.78 g average. You could match it up with the Dodge Charger even though that car is 10 inches longer with a wheelbase nearly 6 inches longer, and it’s 300 pounds heavier. An R/T with the 370-hp 5.7-liter V-8 is cheaper by five grand, but the Kia will dust it everywhere but the skidpad and figure eight—and even then, it’s close. You need the $41,000 R/T Scat Pack with the 485-hp 6.4-liter V-8 if you want to win. And the Kia has a far nicer interior. No, Kia wants a piece of the Germans. After all, the Stinger GT has a hatchback like the smaller Audi A5 Sportback or BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe. (The more appropriately sized Audi A7 is $69,000, in case you were wondering.) The Audi A5 is $43,000 to start, and your only option is the 252-hp 2.0-liter turbo-four. Based on results of the lighter A4, it’s slower, but like the Charger, it just pips the Kia on the skidpad and figure eight. But it’s substantially smaller. The BMW is also smaller but can be had with a turbo I-6 with 320 hp for about $50,000. Based on our test of the lighter 340i sedan, the 440i Gran Coupe is slower than the Kia, full stop. Mercedes-Benz doesn’t make a hatchback sedan (yet), but to smoke the Kia, you’d need to spring for the $54,000 C43 AMG, which clips the Kia in every test but is, again, a smaller package. In other words, the Kia can hang with the big dogs and might have carved out a pretty sharp niche.The post Exclusive 2018 Kia Stinger GT First Test: Well Stung appeared first on Motor Trend.

2017 Jeep Compass Limited and Trailhawk First Test Review

Sometimes, there are vehicles or even whole brands you just want to like. Whether its heritage or philosophy or some other intangible quality, they just seem cool, and you want them to be good. It’s that much more disappointing when they’re not. The new Jeep Compass is one of those vehicles. With its baby Grand Cherokee good looks, Trail Rated badge, and monumental leap forward from the old model, you can’t help but want the new Compass to be good. We know Jeep is serious about off-roading, so immediately we want to get this thing dirty. We want to drive it hard because we know it ought to be tougher than anything else in the segment. We admire Jeep’s commitment to capability and its heritage. The Compass is good in some ways. With up to 23 mpg city and 32 mpg highway, its fuel economy is near the top of the class. It looks great. You can get it with a manual transmission. There’s a massive sunroof, an excellent Uconnect infotainment system, and a powerful Beats audio system. Even the basic all-wheel-drive system does off-roading better than anything in its class. At $22,000 to start, it’s a solid value for the money. For all the things it does well, though, the Compass is let down by some key failings. Chief among them is the powertrain. The Compass, when equipped with all-wheel drive and the nine-speed automatic transmission like our two testers, is intensely slow. Like, can’t-catch-a-Prius slow. Your only engine option is the Tigershark 2.4-liter four-cylinder, and although its 180 hp and 175 lb-ft ought to be competitive, the Compass’ 3,600-plus-pound curb weight isn’t. The top-spec Limited 4X4 needed a belabored 10.5 seconds to reach 60 mph from a stop; the Prius needs 9.8. The Trailhawk is slightly quicker, thanks to a more aggressive final drive ratio in the transmission, a byproduct of its exclusive and more capable all-wheel-drive system. With that, it lumbers to 60 mph in 9.4 seconds. The rest of the test track results are equally unimpressive. The quarter mile takes 17.2 and 17.8 seconds at 76.1 and 77.2 mph for the Limited and Trailhawk, respectively. The Limited’s more street-friendly tires grip the pavement a bit better to the tune of 0.75 g average on the skidpad and a 28.6-second figure-eight lap at 0.57 g average to the Trailhawk’s 0.73 g average on the skidpad and 29.6-second figure-eight lap at 0.53 g average. Braking is equally poor, though it was exacerbated by intense heat on our test day, which can’t be mathematically corrected like acceleration can. The Limited needed 133 feet to stop from 60 mph and the Trailhawk needed 144 feet. Based on data from similar vehicles in our testing archive, we estimate the Limited could stop in as little as 123 feet on a milder day. That Prius will drive circles around the Compass, running a 17.2-second quarter mile, pulling 0.81 g average on the skidpad, and laying down a 28.0-second figure-eight lap at 0.59 g average. It stops from 60 mph in 124 feet. The good news under the hood is that Fiat Chrysler finally seems to have this ZF nine-speed automatic transmission sorted out. This is the finest example yet and completely devoid of all the clunking and gear hunting that characterized earlier models. Finally, it knows what gear it wants to be in and gets into it smoothly. Unfortunately, the gear it wants to be in is always the highest one possible, and it’ll fight you tooth and nail for a downshift into the powerband. There are plenty of off-road modes but no Sport mode, so the best you can do is paddle shift it yourself, which sort of defeats the purpose of having an automatic. There’s more good news down there, and it’s called Active Drive (Active Drive Low for the Trailhawk). Jeep knows its image is built on its off-road capability and made sure the Compass delivers. The Trailhawk is the Trail Rated one and the obvious choice if you plan to do real off-roading, but the all-wheel-drive system on the lesser models is plenty capable in its own right. Our evaluation included a sand pit, which also approximates deep mud or snow, and the Limited had no trouble with it. “Auto” on the off-road mode dial needed a few seconds to figure out what kind of surface it was on, but it kept the Compass chugging right through the deep stuff. Sand mode worked even better, naturally. We’re not sure even the Trailhawk noticed it was off the pavement. That said, the Trailhawk did have an issue when we tested the hill-hold feature. On a steep hill, the computer will hold the brakes while you move your foot from the brake pedal to the gas. We waited too long, and the computer released the brakes, allowing the Trailhawk to roll backward in Drive. The engine died, the dashboard lit up, and the vehicle refused to restart for five minutes. Time and turning it off, locking the doors, waiting, and trying again eventually brought it back. Both Jeeps also struggled on a cobblestone street, which caused major shaking in the vehicle and let loose a chorus of squeaks, creaks, and rattles from the interior. This, and Jeep’s inability to make the body panels line up straight even after 75 years of making automobiles, caused concerns about the build quality. Back on normal pavement, the Compass did a bit better. Both ride well for the segment, the Trailhawk a bit more so, thanks to its bigger, softer off-road tires. Both had fairly quiet interiors with the exception of some moderate wind noise at freeway speeds. Each has more body roll than we’ve come to expect from modern crossovers, though the roll is controlled well and happens smoothly. It’s seriously exaggerated by the lack of any lateral support from the seats. In terms of actually turning, though, the Compass goes around a corner as smooth and stable as it ought to. The seats aren’t the only trouble in the familiar but fun interior. With the redundant climate controls and the off-road controller on the center stack, there’s precious little room to stash your stuff up front. There’s just one little cubby ahead of the shifter and the cupholders. For as big as the Compass is, the cargo hold is a bit smaller than you’d expect, mostly due to the steep rake of the tailgate, which makes the cargo space triangular in shape. It’s just deep enough you can push taller items to the back, but it’s not as big as you’d like. The load floor is also fairly high, and there’s not a lot of space underneath it to stash things. On the other hand, the somewhat small cargo area pays off in two ways. One, with an optional full-size spare tire, and two, with a surprisingly spacious rear seat. Only the tallest editors found headroom and kneeroom to be any kind of issue. The rear doors also open wider than you expect, making it very easy to get in and out. There’s also a USB port, a 12-volt power port, and air-conditioning vents in the rear seat; all those are often omitted at this price. In addition to optioning the real spare tire, we’d also recommend spicing up the black-on-black interior with some of the colorful trim options on offer. The new Jeep Compass is a decent crossover that you want to be great. It’s a sharp-looking little ute neither as gimmicky as the Renegade nor polarizing as the Cherokee, and its well-earned Trail Rated badge is the envy of lesser crossovers. With a competitive engine and transmission and better attention to detail, it could be a showstopper. Instead, it’s “pretty good, but …” We hope Jeep polishes out the imperfections sooner rather than later, before all the tarnish it scrubbed off the Compass name comes back. Because the test surface we used for this review is a mere month old (and still curing), our braking and handling results show longer stopping distances and less grip than we typically record and report. With that in mind, this vehicle’s numbers are not necessarily comparable with previous or future test results. 2017 Jeep Compass Limited 4×4 2017 Jeep Compass Trailhawk 4×4 BASE PRICE $30,090 $29,690 PRICE AS TESTED $36,250 $34,060 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV Front-engine, 4WD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV ENGINE 2.4L/180-hp/175-lb-ft SOHC 16-valve I-4 2.4L/180-hp/175-lb-ft SOHC 16-valve I-4 TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic 9-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,615 lb (58/42%) 3,656 lb (59/41%) WHEELBASE 103.8 in 103.8 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 173.0 x 73.8 x 64.6 in 173.0 x 73.8 x 64.6 in 0-60 MPH 10.5 sec 9.4 sec QUARTER MILE 17.8 sec @ 76.1 mph 17.2 sec @ 77.2 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 133 ft 144 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.75 g (avg) 0.73 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.6 sec @ 0.57 g (avg) 29.6 sec @ 0.53 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 22/30/25 mpg 22/30/25 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 153/112 kW-hrs/100 miles 153/112 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.78 lb/mile 0.78 lb/mile The post 2017 Jeep Compass Limited and Trailhawk First Test Review appeared first on Motor Trend.

2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4Matic Coupe First Test: Ooooh, Look at That!

Did you look at the taillights? No, really, how closely did you check out the 2018 Mercedes-Benz E-Class coupe’s lit up taillights? The superficially satisfying taillight design is said to have a crystal look, which is fitting from the same automaker that brought us the S-Class coupe’s Swarovski-crystal-filled headlights. When it comes to details that make coupe buyers feel special, the 2018 E-Class coupe knocks it out of the park with a B-pillarless smash. ‪Probably not a good idea to want a car for its crystal-look taillights, but check out how this @mbusa E400 coupe design detail sparkles!‬ #mercedesbenz #mercedeseclass #eclass #coupe #lights #crystal #details A post shared by Zach Gale (@zachgale) on Jul 26, 2017 at 7:00am PDT Of course, our 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4Matic coupe tester wasn’t perfect, but over the course of track testing as well as driving in traffic, on empty highways, and through winding canyon roads, the car mostly presented itself well. Because luxury coupes carry a “pretty” premium over similar sedans and are made to be seen, we’ll start with design. As with the S-Class coupe, the E-Class coupe continues a Mercedes tradition that’s been around for decades: a B-pillarless design on two-doors. The design detail actually improves visibility, but it is mostly cool because no one else in this price class does it. If the C-Class coupe’s exterior styling is “bar-of-soap boring,” as we called it during 2017 Car of the Year testing, the E-Class coupe is one attractive, half-melted bar of soap. Decide for yourself what you think of the exterior (and Mercedes’ diamond-block grille) by opening this review’s extensive gallery of photos. The only pimple on the 2018 E400 coupe’s design—one shared with the last-generation model—is that the rear side windows aren’t a one-piece unit such as those of the S-Class coupe, so a sliver of the rear side glass stays in place even when you lower all the windows. Compared to the last-generation model, the 2018 Mercedes-Benz E-Class coupe’s wheelbase has been stretched by 4.4 inches. The new two-door is longer (4.8 inches), wider (2.9 inches), and slightly taller (1.5 inches).Step inside, and you’re greeted by air vents inspired by turbine blades. It’s a rich touch for an interior that lives up to our tester’s $86,685 as-tested MSRP. Before you start adding options, know that for now, every E-Class coupe is powered by a 3.0-liter twin-turbo V-6 producing 329 hp and 354 lb-ft of torque. That engine is mated to a responsive nine-speed automatic that behaves well except in the car’s sport mode, where its very aggressive tuning can cause the car to lunge forward a little more than you’d like. Our car was equipped with a $1,900 air suspension that provided a smooth, if a little floaty, ride in comfort mode, but that changes drastically if you switch the car all the way to Sport+. When you’re in a sporty mood, I’d maybe stick with Sport because the suspension doesn’t feel as rough. No matter the driving mode, the 329-hp engine is well matched to a car such as the E-Class coupe, and for the 2018 model year, it is now available on the sedan, too. On the track, the all-wheel-drive 2018 E400 coupe accelerated from 0 to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds (Mercedes expects rear-drive variants to be 0.3 second slower). Road test editor Chris Walton remarked on the car’s “surprisingly linear, nonturbo power delivery,” and said that in hard acceleration, the nine-speed auto turned in smooth and quick shifts. We’ve tested an all-wheel-drive E400 wagon reaching 60 mph in 5.1 seconds, and an all-wheel-drive E300 sedan (with a 241-hp turbo-four) hit 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. Driven quickly around a street corner or on winding roads, the E400 4Matic coupe’s steering is surprisingly reactive, and the car exhibits little body roll. Braking from 60 to 0 mph takes a respectable 112 feet, and the coupe completed our figure-eight course in 25.7 seconds at 0.72 average g. Our tester had AMG Line visual upgrades that don’t translate to better at-the-limit performance. Testing director Kim Reynolds commented on the car’s “slow response to throttle” and said it was “hard to control the understeer.” This is the type of behavior you’ll find close to the car’s limits, and if you’re really seeking out the limits of your luxury coupe, smaller and sportier entries including the Mercedes-AMG C43 and Audi S5 might be more your style. As we noted in our 2018 E-Class Coupe First Drive review, this Mercedes shines as a boulevard cruiser. If you take some friends out to dinner, they’ll access the back seat by pulling a lever on the edge of the front seat that folds the backrest forward, at which point the seat automatically powers forward and up a little bit. In the rear seat, there’s actually a decent amount of legroom, plus some extra space for feet under the front seats. Those rear bucket seats are comfortable enough, though there’s no central armrest, and rear headroom is limited by the way the roof slopes downward toward the car’s rear. What might really keep the rear seat from being used for more than 30 minutes at a time—especially for passengers who get claustrophobic—is the small size of those rear-side windows. You wouldn’t sacrifice the coupe’s styling for a practical concern like that, though, right? If you really want a two-door, four-seat Mercedes without that issue, wait for the E-Class Cabriolet to roll into your local dealership. Both two-door E-Class models are pricier than the sedan, and our E400 coupe was loaded down with more than $25,000 of luxurious options. All-wheel drive is a $2,500 option that doesn’t actually come at the cost of lower fuel economy; the E400 4Matic coupe has the same 20/26 mpg city/highway rating as the rear-drive E400 coupe (in Real MPG testing, the car was good for 18.8/29.7 mpg). Standard equipment includes multimode drive settings that can adjust throttle sensitivity, the transmission, and the weight of the steering. A collision braking mitigation system, LED headlights and taillights, and the large 12.3-inch infotainment display with navigation as well as Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility are also included. An awesome ambient lighting system is wonderfully integrated into the car’s interior and offers five intensity levels and 64 colors. The all-wheel-drive E400 throws in a feature called Magic Vision Control that might be worth getting on the rear-drive model (for $350) just for its eye-roll-worthy name alone. The E400 coupe’s slim windshield wiper blades have laser-cut holes out of which the washer fluid is released, reducing the chance that fluid will spray over the windshield entirely or run off toward the A-pillars. Other features on our $86,685 E400 4Matic coupe included a $2,500 AMG styling package that adds sportier design accents on the outside, different 18-inch wheels (19s are available), a black headliner, and a flat-bottom steering wheel that feels great. The adaptive air suspension is $1,900, and although the system can appreciably change the car’s dynamic performance from one mode to another, we’ve not yet driven a nonair-suspension E-Class coupe. Inflating our car’s as-tested price was a $5,400, 1,450-watt Burmester 3-D sound system with 23 speakers (including ceiling-mounted speakers) and a few listening modes. The system sounds great and those ceiling speakers even get some ambient lighting, but we’re guessing most will be satisfied with the available 590-watt Burmester option that has 13 speakers and attractive aluminum speaker grilles. Mercedes’ multi-camera parking aid is a well-executed version of the tech offered by many automakers, but that feature and a head-up display are bundled in the car’s most expensive package. If you actually have a limited budget, consider stopping at the second of three “Premium” packages. You’ll miss out on Mercedes-Benz’s most advanced active safety tech—though I found the adaptive cruise control left too much following distance on its closest setting—but you’ll still get the 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster, headlights that help you see around corners, and a few other features. If repair costs on some of the E400 coupe’s cool options don’t scare you, there is another feature I hope a future E-Class coupe will offer—a power-door closer. Just like most luxury coupes, the E400’s doors are long, heavy, and require an awkward reach to close if you get inside and realize you forgot to hold onto the inside of the door to close it as you sit down. So you can either remember to close the door as you get inside or, perhaps on a next-gen E-Class coupe, have the car do it for you. The E-Class coupe’s extensive options list, interior color combinations, and wood trim choices might be overwhelming to some buyers, but they’re a part of the car’s appeal. As with similar BMWs, most E-Class coupe customers will probably pick a car that most closely matches the options they want from dealer stock, but knowing you have so many ways of customizing your car is a luxury in itself. The E400 4Matic coupe doesn’t have any direct competitors of a similar size now that the BMW 6 Series is offered in convertible and four-door forms but not as a coupe. That leaves consumers interested in an E-Class coupe to also consider the smaller Audi S5, Lexus RC 350, BMW 440i, Infiniti Q60 Red Sport 400, or Cadillac ATS 3.6 coupe. The more expensive E-Class is not really designed to compete against them, but in a segment as ME-oriented as luxury coupes, start your search with designs that speak to you (and view them in person, if possible). The E400 coupe is a solid entry with few competitors, and especially if you’ve got many thousands of dollars to spend on extra-cost colors and interior options, it could be just the car for when the larger S-Class coupe is too ostentatious. 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4Matic Coupe BASE PRICE $62,395 PRICE AS TESTED $86,685 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe ENGINE 3.0L/329-hp/354-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 24-valve V-6 TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,305 lb (55/45%) WHEELBASE 113.1 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 190.0 x 73.2 x 56.3 in 0-60 MPH 5.2 sec QUARTER MILE 13.7 sec @ 102.2 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 112 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.90 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 25.7 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 18.8/29.7/22.6 mpg EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 20/26/22 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 169/130 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.87 lb/mile The post 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4Matic Coupe First Test: Ooooh, Look at That! appeared first on Motor Trend.

2017 Porsche 911 Targa 4 GTS First Test: Performance, Value, and Style

In the world of Porsche, the letters GTS mean Gran Turismo Sport, and they first made their debut in 1964 on the 904 Carrera GTS—one of the brand’s most iconic street-homologated race cars. In 1966, the word Targa entered Porsche’s lexicon, in a dainty lowercase script affixed to the base of the 911’s B-pillar. Targa means “plate” in Italian but is also related to “shield” in Old High German and Old Norse. It is associated with Porsche because of how often its racers won the Targa Florio—one of the oldest, most prestigious endurance races in world—but all of those meanings have largely been forgotten since Porsche trademarked the term for this removable-roof but not fully convertible body type of the 911. The Targa body style has been a fixture of the 911 line since 1966, but it took until 2015 for Targa and GTS to appear together. Consider GTS to be a sort of high-performance value package, built for speed as well as comfort (unlike the pricier, race-hardened GT3, which loses its rear seats and various creature comforts in pursuit of pure performance). GTS is available on rear- and all-wheel-drive coupes and cabriolets and Targa models (all-wheel drive only), and it represents a savings of about 10 percent over an identically specced S models. Thanks to upgraded turbochargers, GTS models make 450 horsepower and 405-lb-ft of torque; that’s 30 more horsepower than current S models and 20 more than the previous-generation GTS. The 2017 Targa 4 GTS we had in for testing was a beauty of a boulevard bruiser, resplendent in a Night Blue Metallic paint job ($710) with matching dark blue Targa top (a no-cost option) and an interior trimmed in black leather and Alcantara ($3,850). Black exterior accents come standard with GTS and include murdered-out exhaust tips, Turbo S alloy wheels, and—for the first time in Porsche history—the Targa roof pillar. (Returning to standard silver accents is free, but if you want to black out the pillar on your non-GTS Targa, expect to pay $700.) About that roof—dropping it is a show-stopping party trick. The entire rear glass cants back on spindly mechanical arms as the cloth top ducks and hides. Just make sure you time the magic right, or you will indeed cause a traffic jam. Unlike 911 Cabriolets, whose soft tops can be raised and lowered in 13 seconds at speeds up to 31 mph, Targas need to be at a complete stop for the 20-second changing act. With a base price of $138,200, the Targa 4 GTS is certainly not cheap; our loaded loaner hit $161,515. But when you consider its performance relative to the competition, the Targa 4 GTS presents a significant value proposition. Just look at our test notes. After cracking off 3.0 seconds flat to 60 mph and a 10.4-second, 120.8-mph quarter-mile pass in our PDK-equipped Targa 4 GTS, road test editor Chris Walton scribbled, “Typical easy-peasy launch control, and I tried a few variations of it. The best was traction control off, shocks at the softest setting, and don’t stay on both pedals very long. As soon as the tach reaches 6,000, release the brake pedal. Very smooth upshifts even in max attack mode.” Walton also noted the Targa GTS is faster than an Audi R8 V10 Spyder, but more on that later. Braking performance from 60 mph was also excellent. The Targa GTS averaged 100 feet on the nose through four stops, with a best stop of 98 feet. “Fairly long travel brake pedal but very easy to modulate,” Walton noted. “Dead straight, very consistent, as all Porsche 911s are.” Around our figure-eight handling track in the hands of testing director Kim Reynolds, our Targa GTS cracked off a quick 23.6-second lap at 0.87 g average lateral acceleration. It also hit a peak lateral acceleration of 0.98 g. “It’s pretty easy to drive,” Reynolds said. “It does understeer mid-corner, but if you enter, turn in, and wait long enough, then the tail does rotate around in proper 911 fashion. After, you can jump on the gas again and hold it. Exiting is crazy fun because the car can be drifted out at any angle you like and never did it worry about losing control (it almost invites too much confidence). But as Chris said earlier, its brakes are fantastic. Not only because they’re extremely powerful but also because there’s enough pitch (slight—but there) such that you can judge things. Plus there’s feedback in the pedal’s motion and effort change, too, that all add up to brakes you can predict and judge and depend on.” To give some context to this performance, Porsche’s all-wheel-drive, four-passenger drop-top sports coupe needs only a six turbocharged cylinders to whip the V-10-powered, all-wheel-drive, two-passenger, mid-engine drop-top known as the Audi R8 V10 Spyder. To 60 mph, the Targa beat the V10 Spyder by 0.3 second. Through the quarter mile, the Porsche nips the Audi by 0.1 second, though the R8 does have a higher trap speed. In braking from 60 mph, Targa undercuts Spyder by 13 feet, or roughly a car length. Sure, mid-engine beats rear-engine in our handling test right? Nope, the Targa is a tenth quicker around our figure-eight course. But the biggest surprise is not when you tally up the seconds, mpg, or g’s, but the price. Base to base, the V10 Spyder is $38,400 more than the Targa GTS. In as tested price, the gap drops to $31,085. Want a semi-drop-top Porsche that will blow doors off any other 911-badged Carrera S or 4S? Want to embarrass Audi R8 Spyder owners and maybe give the odd Huracán a run for its money? Well then step right up. But if you need additional power and performance, in an even wider drop-top 911, head right over here. 2017 Porsche 911 Targa 4 GTS BASE PRICE $139,250 PRICE AS TESTED $160,465 VEHICLE LAYOUT Rear-engine, AWD, 4-pass, 2-door convertible ENGINE 3.0L/450-hp/405-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 24-valve flat-6 TRANSMISSION 7-speed twin-clutch auto CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,642 lb (38/62%) WHEELBASE 96.5 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 178.3 x 72.9 x 50.8 in 0-60 MPH 3.0 sec QUARTER MILE 11.4 sec @ 120.8 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 98 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.98 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 23.6 sec @ 0.87 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 20/26/22 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 169/130 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.87 lb/mile The post 2017 Porsche 911 Targa 4 GTS First Test: Performance, Value, and Style appeared first on Motor Trend.

2017 Toyota RAV4 SE FWD First Test: Slaying Sedans

Crossovers are changing the automotive industry with their record-breaking sales. So much so that many manufacturers are changing their M.O., shifting their focus to crossovers instead of sedans. Manufacturers who haven’t hopped on the crossover bandwagon are rushing new and updated models to the market while some have let go of top executives for not adapting to the shift in the market soon enough. Top-selling sedans such as the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, and Nissan Altima have all been surpassed by their crossover counterparts year-to-date. The compact Civic, Corolla, and Sentra sedans haven’t fared any better, and have also seen their sales drop due to the crossover craze. Many will argue that it’s the low price of gasoline, the appeal of riding higher, or the plentiful cargo space; whatever it might be, consumers seem to be buying crossovers in pairs, and the trend doesn’t seem to be changing. The 2017 Toyota RAV4 is no exception, with sales topping the Camry and Corolla for the year. However, without a redesign since the 2013 model, the RAV4 is showing its age against the recently overhauled Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5. The upcoming RAV4 will be built on the Toyota New Global Architecture (new platform) that underpins the new Camry and should impress. In the meantime, let’s further evaluate the current RAV4. Last year, we tested the 2016 RAV4 SE AWD (all-wheel drive), and this year we got our hands on the front-wheel drive (FWD) 2017 SE model. How do the two compare? During Motor Trend testing, the AWD model outpaces the FWD version to 60 mph by about half a second, 8.7 seconds and 9.3 seconds respectively. In the quarter mile, things get closer as the AWD model clocks in at 16.7 seconds at 83.4 mph compared to the FWD’s run of 17.0 seconds at 82.5 mph. Handling prowess did not differ—both models had the exact same figure-eight time of 28.6 seconds with an average of .57g. Braking is almost identical, with the RAV4 AWD taking 124 feet to stop from 60 mph and the RAV4 FWD taking 126 feet. When looking at fuel economy, as expected, the AWD model is rated at a lower 22/28 mpg city/highway while the FWD delivers 23/30 mpg. All-wheel drive demands a premium of $1,400, but on some models, such as the SE, getting AWD means other mandatory options are tacked on that end up making it a more expensive option. In this case, the $2,200 Entune Premium Audio with Nav package is a must when AWD is equipped. To give you some reference with comparable FWD crossovers Motor Trend has track tested, the 2017 Kia Sportage (181-hp, 2.4-liter I-4) is quicker to 60 mph and to the quarter mile at 8.0 and 16.3 seconds respectively. The 2017 Ford Escape (179-hp, 1.5-liter turbo I-4) is quicker in both categories as well but only by a pinch, clocking in a 0-60-mph time of 9.2 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 16.9 seconds. The figure-eight times of both rivals were also faster, with the Sportage finishing the handling course in 27.8 seconds and the Escape in 27.9 seconds. The Escape shares the same braking distance from 60 mph at 126 feet, but the Sportage stopped significantly shorter at 118 feet. In terms of performance, the RAV4 has a bit of catching up to do. Away from the track, the RAV4 fared better against the Sportage and Escape. The 2017 Toyota RAV4 received the highest overall safety scores possible from both the NHTSA and IIHS. The crossover received a five-star overall safety rating from NHTSA and is considered a 2017 Top Safety Pick+ from the IIHS. Both the Sportage and Escape received five stars as well from NHTSA but not the Top Safety Pick+ designation. Instead, Top Safety Pick (not +) for the Sportage and the Escape missed the honor by getting an Acceptable rating (instead of Good) for the small overlap front test. The RAV wins again with a cavernous 73.4 cubic feet of cargo capacity (38.4 cubic feet with the seats up) compared to the Sportage’s 60.1 cubic feet and the Escape’s 68.0 cubic feet. When comparing the above-mentioned engines paired with four-wheel drive, all of the fuel economy ratings for all three crossovers are the same at 23/30 mpg. I didn’t think I’d say this, but the RAV4 is actually pretty fun-to-drive. Most of that can be attributed to the sport-tuned suspension that the SE model comes standard with. Toyota stiffened the springs and firmed the damping, resulting in a better turn-in and reduced body roll. Even on midcorner bumps, the RAV4 chassis felt solid and stable. If that is hard to believe, veteran testing director Kim Reynolds had similar things to say once he flogged the crossover around Motor Trend’s figure-eight course. “I was full-throttle most of the way around the skidpads, but the behavior of the car is smooth—no bucking and brake grabbing,” he said. “Body motions are well damped if very noticeable. A lot of good refinement to be witnessed here.” Unfortunately, this comes at a price. The stiff suspension is not very smooth over rough roads, and non-SE RAV4s offer better ride comfort. The RAV’s Auto LSD (limited-slip differential) is brake actuated and is well tuned, providing good traction. Acceleration could be better, but braking is strong and with good feel and travel. Steering feel is nice and pretty heavy, but it lacks any feel. That being said, the driving position is actually not bad for a high-riding crossover. Inside the cabin, you will find a mixture of premium and cheap materials and features. The available 7.0-inch display screen is a decent size, but it lacks high resolution and gets lots of glare easily. The leather-like SofTex trimmed seats and dashboard with orange contrast stitching looks and feels good, but all the hard plastic interior pieces and switchware do not. The center console armrest is well-padded and creak-free, not cheap at all. The leather-wrapped steering wheel is fine for the segment, but the shifter looks cheap and feels cheap as you put the transmission into gear. The rear seats are spacious, comfortable, and fold flat, but as one of our staffers mentioned, loading a car seat takes a bit more effort than our current long-term 2017 Honda CR-V. For the next generation, I hope the RAV4 receives Apple Carplay/Android Auto and a Wi-Fi hot spot like most of its rivals offer. The best features are the driver-assist safety systems. The RAV4 SE comes standard with Toyota Safety Sense P (TSS-P) that includes forward automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection, lane departure alert with steering assist, automatic high-beams, and adaptive cruise control. All systems work very well, are not intrusive, and are aided by the standard blind-spot warning and rear cross traffic alert. The optional surround view camera system and front and rear parking sensors are not commonly found in this segment and is a godsent feature when parking. Outside, the Barcelona Red Metallic paint coupled with sharp-looking 18-inch machined alloy wheels and LED headlights, taillights, and daytime running lights result in a good-looking crossover. The base 2017 RAV4 LE starts at $25,405, which is on par with the segment. The SE model we tested has a base price of 29,875 and comes standard with paddle shifters, a moonroof, a rear spoiler, a leather wrapped steering wheel, a SofTex-trimmed eight-way power driver seat, heated front seats, the previously mentioned Toyota Safety Sense P, 18-inch machined alloy wheels, and LED exterior lighting. The main option is the $3,360 Advanced Technology Package that consists of the helpful surround view camera system with front and rear parking sensors, a JBL Green Edge audio system, a 7.0-inch display with Entune Multimedia system and Navigation, Siri Eyes Free, and RAV4 SE logoed door sills. A $69 rear bumper applique and a $99 cargo net hammock that works surprisingly well are the remaining options on our tester. This comes out to a sticker price of $33,454 that might sound a little high considering it’s not the top trim, but many comparable rivals will cost about the same. If purchasing a crossover, opting for all-wheel drive will cost you more in price and in gas, but it will offer better traction if needed for your particular location and quicker acceleration. The RAV4 is a fine crossover in many respects and will make many buyers happy, but it would be hard to recommend it over the newer, more premium and refined Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5. The aged RAV might compete better with the Ford Escape and Hyundai Tucson, but those models cost less. However, if the upcoming RAV4 is as good as the new Camry is on Toyota’s new global platform, the segment better watch out. We might have a new sheriff in town. 2017 Toyota RAV4 SE (FWD) BASE PRICE $29,750 PRICE AS TESTED $32,528 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV ENGINE 2.5L/176-hp/172-lb-ft DOHC 16-valve I-4 TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,543 lb (59/41%) WHEELBASE 104.7 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 183.5 x 72.6 x 66.3 in 0-60 MPH 9.3 sec QUARTER MILE 17.0 sec @ 82.5 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 126 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.79 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.6 sec @ 0.57 g (avg) REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 17.5/29.6/21.4 mpg EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 23/29/25 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 147/116 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.76 lb/mile The post 2017 Toyota RAV4 SE FWD First Test: Slaying Sedans appeared first on Motor Trend.

2017 Volvo V60 Polestar First Test Review

Crossover fatigue. This term, which was uttered half-jokingly during a recent staff meeting discussing one of the many crossover comparison tests we were attempting to execute, describes consumers who might be overwhelmed (and perhaps underwhelmed) by the countless crossovers available today. Our recommended remedy? Wagons! Wagons such as the 2017 Volvo V60, which is just as practical and luxurious as its more popular crossover sibling, the XC60. But unlike the XC60, the V60 is a tad more special because it can be had in a high-performance variant from Volvo’s Polestar division. The 2017 Volvo V60 Polestar (and its sedan counterpart, the S60 Polestar) received some major changes under the hood for this model year. Replacing the transverse 3.0-liter turbocharged inline-six is Volvo’s Drive-E 2.0-liter I-4 that is both supercharged and turbocharged. The new engine churns out 362 hp and 347 lb-ft of torque versus 345 hp and 369 lb-ft before. Also significant is the gearbox routing that power to all four wheels—an eight-speed automatic, which does away with the somewhat lazy six-speed. Acceleration feels brisk and immediate, showcasing the Drive-E’s advantage of having a supercharger to provide the initial grunt that gets the wagon moving in a hurry. The new four-cylinder sounds decent, but the active exhaust is the aural star here, emitting a nice, deep, and sporty snarl. That said, the numbers we achieved with the V60 Polestar’s new powertrain were a mixed bag compared to the inline-six-powered version we tested back in 2015. Its 4.9-second 0–60-mph time, for example, is a tenth quicker than before, and both ran the quarter mile in 13.5 seconds. Brembo brakes are standard, stopping the 3,953-pound wagon in a tidy 111 feet while showing little sign of fade. There was an improvement at the figure-eight course, however, with the updated Polestar posting a lap time of 24.9 seconds and 0.93 average g on the skidpad versus 25.5 seconds and 0.89 g. (Both test vehicles were wearing Michelin Pilot Super Sports). Figure-eight expert and testing director Kim Reynolds praised the new eight-speed automatic for its eagerness to downshift, though he wished the wagon’s steering had a tad more feel. And like before, the V60 Polestar still understeers quite a bit at the limit. Canyon jaunts at a more leisurely pace, however, are much more enjoyable. And although the suspension is tuned on the stiffer side, the ride is still fairly compliant on the rough roads of Los Angeles. The driver’s seat is near perfect—comfortable while offering excellent lateral and thigh support. The minimalist interior still feels special overall, but the infotainment system takes some time to master and simply feels behind the times compared to recent offerings such as Volvo’s own Sensus interface found in the new XC90, S90, and 2018 XC60. When it comes to competitors, the V60 Polestar is essentially a one-man show. The Audi A4 Allroad and BMW 330 xDrive wagons have the edge on cabin tech, but both can only be had with much tamer turbo-fours. And at the other end of the wagon spectrum is the bonkers 600-plus-hp Mercedes-AMG E63 S. That said, it doesn’t get more special than the Volvo V60 Polestar, especially in our tester’s eye-catching Rebel Blue Metallic paint. And with the next-generation V60 just around the corner, we’re hopeful Volvo will continue to supply us with our fix of fast and fun wagons. 2017 Volvo V60 Polestar BASE PRICE/TESTED PRICE $62,595/$62,595 DRIVETRAIN Front engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door wagon ENGINE 2.0L/362-hp/347-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,953 lb (60/40%) WHEELBASE 109.3 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 182.5 x 73.4 x 58.4 in 0-60 MPH 4.9 sec QUARTER MILE 13.5 sec @ 102.4 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 111 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.93 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.9 sec @ 0.76 g (avg) REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 18.1/27.9/21.5 mpg EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 20/27/23 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 169/125 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.86 lb/mile The post 2017 Volvo V60 Polestar First Test Review appeared first on Motor Trend.