From the May 2001 issue of Car and Driver.
What we really have here, friends of fresh air, is a collision of eras. Now vs. then. Contemporary vs. Cretaceous. Primordial vs. polished. Power vs. sophistication. Two tests, really, in one.
In one corner, we have a trio of contemporary convertibles—all with V-6 power and front-wheel drive, and all quiet and mannerly. In the other, we have the 739th recorded renewal of a rivalry that's been going on for more than three decades: Mustang vs. Camaro.
A dichotomy wasn't the idea when we started out. With spring almost in the air (defined in Michigan as temperatures soaring above 32 degrees Fahrenheit), the idea was to round up the various four-seat convertibles available at the $30,000 edge of the luxury-price threshold and see what one gets for that kind of dough. With this end in mind, we decided to specify the best possible engine available within our pricing parameters. We did order automatic transmissions across the board, but even so, the engine choice had major consequences. That's because it's possible to have V-8 power with a Chevy Camaro or Ford Mustang and still keep the price under 30 large. In fact, 30 large bolts you into a Z28 version of the Camaro convertible, which also nets you better tires, more starch in the suspension, and a limited-slip rear differential. On the other hand, the $30,000 ceiling eliminated a Pontiac Firebird convertible from this group. That amount at the Pontiac store won't buy a Trans Am V-8, only a nicely equipped Firebird V-6. Suspecting that the difference between 200 horsepower (the output of the base Camaro/Firebird V-6) and 310 horsepower (from the Z28's 5.7-liter LS1 V-8) might put the Firebird at a performance disadvantage (hey, ya think?), the folks at Pontiac decided not to play.
Looking past the issue of the two design approaches vying here, we see that these ragtops do have a fair degree of commonality in the kinds of goodies baked into their prices. For example, all the tops were power-operated, and all had glass rear windows. All had air conditioning; all provided at least some measure of power adjustability to their seats; all had CD players of some sort in the standard audio gear; and all had power windows, mirrors, and locks, with remote-entry key fobs. Most of the cars had at least some leather adorning their seats, with adjustable lumbar support; the Camaro was the exception on both counts.
We put our topless quintet through a Southern California test regimen that was varied in both geography and climate, ranging from flat freeways to challenging mountain two-lanes in weather that included top-down sunshine, rain, snow, and sleet. The route ran from Los Angeles to our test venue at Willow Springs International Motorsports Park, down through Palm Springs, past the Salton Sea to Borrego Springs, then back to L.A.—just over 700 miles total.
In the end, we found that our collective litmus test for four-seat convertibles tended to favor one particular set of characteristics over paltry considerations such as comfort. This came as no particular surprise. What was surprising, though, was how well some of the cars in this test have managed to blend comfort with driver-gratifying reflexes. So well, in fact, that the issue was in doubt right up to the final tally.
Jump to:
- 5th Place: Toyota Camry Solara SLE
- 4th Place: Ford Mustang GT
- 3rd Place: Chrysler Sebring Limited
- 2nd Place: Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GT
- 1st Place: Chevrolet Camaro Z28
5th Place: Toyota Camry Solara SLE
Toyota earns its steadily growing chunk of the U.S. new-vehicle market by delivering consistently high quality, exceptional reliability, generally quiet operation, high resale values, and all-around user-friendliness. With a couple of notable exceptions, the Camry Solara conforms to those Toyota norms and is therefore a good choice for a sunny afternoon of leisurely cruising.
The Solara is capable of comfortably accommodating four all-grown-up passengers for drives of almost any duration. Our test car was enhanced by seats clad in soft leather with a wide range of power adjustability, plus front side airbags and the broadest array of features in our convertible corral. With all those features, it was also the most expensive. It makes for a car that does a pretty respectable job of keeping its occupants happy—provided the pace is sedate, and the road is straight.
When those easy driving tasks ceased to exist—about the time we began the climb out of the Anza-Borrego Desert into the tight mountain roads west of the basin—the Solara's popularity sank in direct proportion. As the grades steepened and the curves tightened, the Toyota's responses went from unobtrusive and benign to slow and mulish, provoking a correspondingly disparaging tonality in the logbook commentary.
"Not a lot of punch uphill, lots of rock-'n'-roll in transitions," said one tester, who added some gratuitous remarks about Dramamine.
"Not a sporting bone in its body," wrote another. "I'll be surprised if there's anything left of the front-tire sidewall markings."
Understeer and reluctant transient responses are traits we expect in front-drive cars that lack sporting pretensions, of course, but the Solara had more of both than its rivals. It was the slowest in our emergency-lane-change test, recorded the poorest skidpad number, and steadfastly refused to be hurried in the high country. We were also a little surprised at the Solara's rather sluggish forward progress—8.5 seconds to 60 mph, slower than all but the Sebring. And even the Sebring could motor away from the topless Camry in the twisty sections, which we put down to the Toyota's limited grip, excessive body roll, and general resistance to directional changes.
Aside from the issue of degree, none of this sluggishness was unexpected. This even applies to the chassis, which was the most flexible in our fleet. Toyota has never had much success with retaining chassis stiffness in its convertiblized coupes, and the Solara is not an exception.
But we did encounter a couple of things that were anomalous by Toyota's standards. For example, all hands remarked on the turbulence in the Solara's top-down cockpit, whether the windows were up or down. Related to that, the automatic climate-control system refused to deliver heat when the top was down unless the temperature control was set at "high." Worst of all, it sometimes took two or three tries to get proper wind sealing along the windshield header.
HIGHS: Quality materials, cushy freeway ride, best back seat in this bunch.
LOWS: Reluctant handling, rubbery chassis, inconsistent wind sealing, quirky climate controls.
VERDICT: A cream-puff boulevardier that fades fast in hard going; drivers look elsewhere.
In the end, the Solara had no advocates. With the exceptions noted above, it has all the basic Camry virtues. But the fun-to-drive factor is essentially absent.
4th Place: Ford Mustang GT
Poll Americans about their favorite American cars, and this name will probably turn up in the top three. Since its debut in 1964, the Mustang—in particular, the droptop Mustang—has been an all-American icon, symbolizing youth and freedom and Yankee style and a spirit of adventure in a way that its various cross-town rivals have never managed to match. Even when those rivals offered better cars. Like now.
Our test car was a GT model, whose base price ($27,390) included a 260-hp version of Ford's 4.6-liter SOHC modular V-8, a limited-slip rear end, a GT hood scoop that doesn't actually do anything, and GT side scoops that rate a ditto. This car was also enhanced with an $1150 option package that included a killer audio with a six-disc CD changer, leather sport bucket seats, and a set of Goodyear Eagle 245/45ZR tires around very cool 8.0-by-17-inch aluminum alloy rims inspired by the wheels on Steve McQueen's Mustang in the movie Bullitt.
We were impressed by this Mustang's build quality. It had a tight, integrated feel that hasn't distinguished very many Mustangs in our experience, and this translated into a respectable set of reflexes, as well as better ride quality than we expected. The Mustang turned in the quickest run in the lane-change exercise, trailed only the Camaro in skidpad performance, and had the second-best stops from 70 mph.
With its smaller displacement, Ford's 4.6-liter V-8 is still no match for the Camaro's engine, despite a major output boost two years ago, and its straight-ahead performance reflected the disparity. Yet the Mustang was 2.2 seconds faster to 60 than the next-quickest ragtop, making the sprint in six seconds flat, and it was the only other player to cover the quarter-mile in less than 15 seconds.
So a power shortage isn't the real problem here. Nor is the less-than-cooperative response of the automatic transmission, which showed little inclination to kick down to second gear for extra passing punch, and even less inclination to be stirred manually.
Nope. The reason America's favorite pony car finished fourth among five had to do with comfort and general ease of operation. Example No. 1: Every member of the test crew had something to say about the Mustang's seats, none of it positive.
"Dining-room chairs ruin this car for me," wrote one.
"I feel like I'm sitting on it, not in it," wrote another.
The Mustang's seats have caused us to scratch our heads in previous visitations, and nothing has happened to change that state of affairs. And the marginal seating—remember, these are the premium buckets we're talking about—is aggravated by a cockpit that's just too small to allow taller drivers to achieve a comfortable wheel/seat/foot-pedal relationship. We're also a little mystified by the relationship between the pedals themselves. Heel-and-toe here would require some ankle articulation that's missing in most humans.
Predictably, we were unimpressed by the Mustang's rear seat, although to be fair, it's no worse than the rear perch in either the Camaro or the Mitsubishi Eclipse. The Mustang was distinctly noisier than its rivals in most operating modes; wind-sealing the windows required running them down and up a time or two. The top latches could be balky, and the tonneau cover was the most difficult to install.
HIGHS: Decent punch from a small-displacement V-8, surprisingly tight package overall, sweet-sounding at idle.
LOWS: Awkward driving position, shapeless bucket seats, hard-to-reach controls, medieval rear seat.
VERDICT: Still an all-American favorite, for reasons that are not entirely clear to us.
Bottom line: The Mustang gives a good account of itself in spirited driving. Its defining trait is understeer, and it's all but impossible to make a major mistake. Braking performance is robust and fade-free. But those virtues are more than offset by a package that verges on primitive compared with the modern cars in this comparo. Despite various superficial remedies, this live-axle chassis is ancient, the interior is cramped, and why anyone regards these seats as "sport buckets" is a question for a mystic.
3rd Place: Chrysler Sebring Limited
Introduced in February, the Chrysler Sebring is the newest of these cars and the first major overhaul of a highly successful original. It shares the new Sebring-Dodge Stratus sedan platform, foundations that DaimlerChrysler calls 44 percent improved in terms of bending rigidity. Although this hasn't quite resulted in a flex-free chassis—the upper dash, the steering column, and the rearview mirror tend to oscillate at slightly different rates over lumpy pavement—it's a substantial improvement on the previous edition and also yields handling responses of a higher order. Pressed hard, the Sebring lapses into industrial understeer, but a little judicious trail braking restores a bit of balance, and the AutoStick manumatic allows the operator to keep the engine in the sweet part of its power band.
This last is important, if hurry-up is an issue, because even though the Sebring's makeover included a new engine—Chrysler's 2.7-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6, with 200 horsepower vs. the 168 generated by the previous Mitsubishi-supplied engine—it still has to work quite hard to keep pace with its contemporaries. Well, almost keep up. In fact, the Sebring was the slowest damsel at this dance, requiring just under nine seconds to hit 60 mph and almost 26 seconds to get to 100 mph.
As a consequence, the Sebring's logbook reflected a fair amount of wistful yearning for more snort.
"Definite shortage of power, particularly with even a hint of altitude," wrote one of our scribblers. "The Sebring can be hurried on mountain roads, but it's more work than fun."
On the other hand, the Sebring's ride quality was excellent on all surfaces, its interior noise levels subjectively seemed the lowest, its top was the easiest to run up and down (just over 21.5 seconds from unlatch to relatch), its rear seat was roomy and easily accessible, and its inventory of comfort-and-convenience features was second only to the more expensive (by $2367) Solara.
Thus, the Sebring emerged as our value champ and also won the nod as best to behold. Although the new Sebring doesn't look dramatically different from the old, its sheetmetal is 85 percent new, according to DaimlerChrysler, blending retro themes with contemporary curves in a style that is still uniquely Chrysler. And we were even more impressed with the appearance of the interior. The bucket seats didn't generate much enthusiasm for their supportive traits, but they certainly looked spiffy in cream-colored glove leather. We were also seduced by the contrasting blue trim and the bright bezels surrounding the major instruments. Although the wood-grain seems to have been inspired by something that grew in another galaxy, the overall look is classy—the classiest, in fact, in this test.
HIGHS: Smooth operator on the open road, classy interior, sophisticated sheetmetal, long-haul room for four.
LOWS: Needs more muscle, chassis wiggles on uneven pavement, alien wood-grain trim.
VERDICT: A composed and roomy droptop that delivers everything but haste.
In the end, modest power relegates the Sebring to midpack. But if you require your fresh air with seating for four, and luggage space to match, read no further.
2nd Place: Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GT
If this test had any major surprises, this car provided them. With its shortest-in-group wheelbase and lowest curb weight, we expected the topless Mitsu to be relatively agile, but we did not expect the level of neutral handling and steering accuracy the Eclipse delivered. Although the chassis didn't feel as sturdy as the coupe version—no surprise there, right?—it was no licorice whip, either, thus providing the foundation for suspension tuning that struck the best balance in this evaluation between smooth ride quality and athletic handling traits.
If there's any fault to find with the Mitsu's dynamics, it's under the hood, where we kept wishing we'd suddenly come upon another 40 or 50 horsepower. The Eclipse's 3.0-liter SOHC 24-valve V-6 was similar in output to those towing the other front-drive cars—200 horsepower, 205 pound-feet of torque—and the four-speed Sportronic manumatic (Mitsu's answer to Chrysler's AutoStick) helped make the most of the power, delivering a 0-to-60 run of 8.2 seconds, quickest in that front-wheel-drive subclass. We also found the Sportronic transmission to be a little more user-friendly than the AutoStick, partly because of its fore-and-aft motions (AutoStick goes side to side), partly because its engagements seemed to be a little more immediate. However, what you really want here is the standard five-speed manual, which will knock about a second off the 0-to-60 sprint and $1000 off the price. The Solara and Sebring are automatic only.
Thanks to its best-in-test bucket seats, the Mitsu got decent marks in the comfort-and-convenience scoring, despite some relatively minor quirks—a digital radio display that was all but invisible in bright sunlight, for example, and hard-to-close top latches—plus a fair amount of wind noise with the top up. The rear seats were worthless, of course, as you'd expect of the smallest car in the group, although we did manage to cram a couple of six-foot guys in there, just to see if it could be done without using a chainsaw. (They're convalescing nicely, should be back to work real soon.)
HIGHS: Eager-to-please handling, best-in-test front seats, comfortable cruising composure, best manumatic.
LOWS: Balky top latches, Marquis de Sade rear seats, modest power.
VERDICT: A willing companion on a twisty back road, and just a few ponies shy of best all-around.
Making this car even more attractive is a high value index. That's a little hard to perceive in the as-tested price, which includes a $2650 GT Premium package—ABS, upscale audio with four-disc in-dash changer, leather, front side airbags, traction control—but at its base price of $25,942 (no Sportronic), the Eclipse GT is an attractive buy. With a little more power, we think the final outcome here could very well have been different.
1st Place: Chevrolet Camaro Z28
What's new? Nothing. Familiar shape, familiar concept—potent V-8 up front, live axle at the rear—and after 35 years, it should be familiar.
Like the Mustang, the Camaro is the antithesis of the kind of finesse represented by the Eclipse, except more so. There's nothing subtle here: Stab the throttle and hang on. Our Z28 was far and away the fleetest of these fair-weather specialists, hitting 60 mph in a brisk 5.2 seconds and 100 mph in 12.3, and covering the quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds at 104 mph. Top speed was 158 mph.
Although we weren't particularly impressed with the manual shiftability of the four-speed automatic, it didn't seem to hold the car back at all. In fact, this Z28's straight-ahead performance was almost identical to the acceleration runs of the last one we tested—a 305-horse '99 coupe equipped with a six-speed manual (February 1999).
That was a bit of a surprise. We were even more surprised by this Camaro's performance in basic handling tests. At 0.84 g, its skidpad grip was the same as that recorded by that '99 coupe, and its speed through the emergency-lane-change maneuver—59.5 mph—was just a couple ticks slower. However, we should also note that these numbers recorded by the Z28 convertible weren't best in test, which can also be said of its 70-to-0-mph braking performance—188 feet, third best here.
We suspect much of the foregoing is attributable to the Camaro's 245/50ZR-16 Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires, which had plenty of contact patch but didn't seem to deliver a whole lot of grip.
All hands were quite impressed, however, by the Camaro's aggressive willingness on mountain roads. Although there was some kvetching about numb steering, the Z28 was just flat uncatchable in twisty territory. True, some testers felt the Mitsubishi was a little less intimidating in this kind of work, but we eventually agreed that this was because there was a much stronger sense of immediacy with the Camaro. It got down the straight stretches faster, it carried higher cornering speeds, and when the corner exit arrived, it was "Hasta la vista, muchachos!"
"Definitely the sports-car champ in power and handling," said the logbook."Brakes hold up well in hard use, too."Although the Camaro held almost all the performance aces, its comfort and convenience ratings were subpar. To be fair, it was surprisingly free of wind buffeting with the top down, and its simple three-piece tonneau cover was by far the easiest to install.
But the interior materials in this Chevy—a festival of unabashed plastic and tacky mouse-fur upholstery—would look more appropriate in a Trabant than in a $30,000 all-American. As in the Mustang, it was virtually impossible for at least some testers to achieve a comfortable driving position, although the Z28's seats were slightly more supportive. And the back seat was equally useless. Some irritating quality problems showed up in the logbook, too—a persistent rattle somewhere in the folding-top mechanism, and intermittent wind leaks around the windows. Compared with the front-drive cars, the Camaro's level of refinement definitely belongs to another era.
HIGHS: Major-league thrust, tailback agility, gratifying grip, fade-free braking, seductive tailpipe audio.
LOWS: Tacky interior materials, primitive front seats, cramped rear seats, high ambient noise levels.
VERDICT: Yeah, it's a barbarian. But it's our kind of barbarian.
Still, we favor cars that deliver plenty of punch and athletic competence. It's that old-time religion here at Car and Driver, and the Camaro Z28 delivers more of it for the money than anything in this class. Hallelujah!
Specifications
Specifications
2001 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,425/$29,750
ENGINE
pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 346 in3, 5665 cm3
Power: 310 bhp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 340 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/torsion beam
Brakes, F/R: vented disc/vented disc
Tires: Goodyear Eagle RS-A
P245/50ZR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.1 in
Length: 193.5 in
Width: 74.1 in
Height: 51.8 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 55/27 ft3
Trunk Volume: 8 ft3
Curb Weight: 3600 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.2 sec
100 mph: 12.3 sec
1/4-Mile: 13.8 sec @ 104 mph
120 mph: 19.3 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 5.3 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 2.3 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 3.5 sec
Top Speed (redline ltd): 158 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 188 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.84 g
Interior Sound
Idle: 55 dBA
Full Throttle: 82 dBA
70-mph Cruising: 71 dBA
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 18 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway: 18/26 mpg
--
2001 Chrysler Sebring Limited
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,490/$29,520
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 167 in3, 2736 cm3
Power: 200 bhp @ 5900 rpm
Torque: 192 lb-ft @ 4300 rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilink
Brakes, F/R: vented disc/disc
Tires: Michelin MX4
P205/60TR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.0 in
Length: 193.7 in
Width: 69.4 in
Height: 55.0 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 53/37 ft3
Trunk Volume: 11 ft3
Curb Weight: 3480 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.9 sec
1/4-Mile: 16.9 sec @ 83 mph
100 mph: 25.8 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.1 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.7 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 sec
Top Speed (gov ltd): 117 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 194 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.76 g
Interior Sound
Idle: 44 dBA
Full Throttle: 75 dBA
70-mph Cruising: 71 dBA
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway: 20/29 mpg
--
2001 Ford Mustang GT
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $27,390/$29,355
ENGINE
SOHC 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 281 in3, 4601 cm3
Power: 260 bhp @ 5250 rpm
Torque: 302 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beam
Brakes, F/R: vented disc/disc
Tires: Goodyear Eagle ZR45
245/45ZR-18
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 101.3 in
Length: 183.2 in
Width: 73.1 in
Height: 53.2 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 50/26 ft3
Trunk Volume: 8 ft3
Curb Weight: 3520 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 6.0 sec
1/4-Mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph
100 mph: 16.1 sec
120 mph: 28.0 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.4 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.0 sec
Top Speed: 139 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 184 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g
Interior Sound
Idle: 51 dBA
Full Throttle: 79 dBA
70-mph Cruising: 74 dBA
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 16 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 18/25 mpg
--
2001 Misubishi Eclipse Spyder GT
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $25,942/$29,592
ENGINE
SOHC 24-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 181 in3, 2972 cm3
Power: 200 bhp @ 5500 rpm
Torque: 205 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilink
Brakes, F/R: vented disc/disc
Tires: Goodyear Eagle RS-A
P215/50VR-17
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 100.8 in
Length: 175.4 in
Width: 68.9 in
Height: 52.8 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 50/25 ft3
Trunk Volume: 7 ft3
Curb Weight: 3380 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.2 sec
100 mph: 22.7 sec
1/4-Mile: 16.4 sec @ 87 mph
120 mph: 41.5 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Top Speed: 133 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 200 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g
Interior Sound
Idle: 50 dBA
Full Throttle: 74 dBA
70-mph Cruising: 72 dBA
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 20 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway: 19/26 mpg
--
2001 Toyota Camry Solara SLE
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $30,970/$31,887
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 182 in3, 2995 cm3
Power: 198 hp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 212 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilink
Brakes, F/R: vented disc/disc
Tires: Michelin MXV4
P205/60HR-16
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 105.1 in
Length: 190.0 in
Width: 71.1 in
Height: 55.5 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 54/37 ft3
Trunk Volume: 9 ft3
Curb Weight: 3500 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.5 sec
1/4-Mile: 16.6 sec @ 84 mph
100 mph: 24.6 sec
120 mph: 55.6 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.5 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 sec
Top Speed: 128 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.74 g
Interior Sound
Idle: 42 dBA
Full Throttle: 74 dBA
70-mph Cruising: 71 dBA
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway: 19/26 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED
Tony was smart, well read, funny, irascible, cantankerous, opinionated, friendly, difficult, charming, honest, and eminently interesting to be around. He loved cars, car people, and words... but most of all, he loved racing. The Car and Driver writer, editor, and racer passed away in 2018 at age 78.
Remembering Tony
>> Home