2019 BMW 3-Series vs. 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia: Which Sports Sedan Packs More Excellence?

2019 BMW 3-Series vs. 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia: Which Sports Sedan Packs More Excellence?

By   15:44

 

Cut to the present, and BMW and Alfa Romeo both offer highly competent, entry-level compact sports sedans—the BMW 3-series and Alfa Romeo Giulia—that address that same enthusiast dilemma. But which car comes closest to delivering driving nirvana while satisfying the practical requirements of daily life—all at a halfway reasonable price?

Face Off

The seventh-generation 3-series was introduced for 2019. The 330i is the volume model and entry point for the lineup, but it's by no means bereft of capability or equipment. Its standard engine is a 255-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four mated to ZF's eight-speed automatic transmission driving the rear wheels. All-wheel drive is optional, but our example did without it. Our $59,920 test car was packed with a stout $18,675 in options, some of which are mandatory when you order the all-important $2450 Track Handling package (stouter brakes and an electronically controlled limited-slip differential). Ticking that box also requires getting the $700 adaptive dampers and the $5000 M Sport package, which adds a number of features, but most important for performance is the set of 19-inch wheels wrapped with summer tires.

 

For this one-on-one test, we chose the four-cylinder Giulia TI Sport, which lines up almost perfectly with the 330i. Like the Bimmer, the Alfa is powered by a turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four, but it shames the BMW's output by producing a hefty 280 horsepower. The Alfa's engine also asserts its power through a ZF-supplied eight-speed automatic and sends it to the rear wheels. Our $52,240 test car was optioned almost as comprehensively as the 3-series. Its most important extra is the TI Sport Performance package, which adds adaptive dampers, a limited-slip differential, and 19-inch summer tires. For the 330i to match the Alfa's price, it would have to give up much of its optional equipment.

On the Road

The Alfa drives with a feathery lightness that brings to mind a ballet dancer. Its ultraquick steering slices into corners and executes lane changes with distinct immediacy. Its ride is deftly supple over large bumps. Its engine growls quietly, pulls strongly down low, and delivers deceptively quick acceleration. It ripped to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds, an impressive half-second quicker than the Bimmer. In normal driving the Giulia is a responsive, refined partner and effortless highway cruiser. The only dynamic annoyance is its electrohydraulic brakes, which are jerky at low speeds, and the pedal feels as if a wet sponge is sitting on top of it.

 

But ask the Alfa to run hard on tight two-lanes, something we did with these cars for a couple hundred miles, and it can feel a little out of shape. The soft springing and damping that work so well around town allow it to bob on twisty, undulating pavement and prevent it from feeling planted and secure—even with its adjustable dampers switched to their most aggressive Dynamic setting. The substantial degree of body movement that the soft setup provides takes some getting used to. There's not much feel or feedback from the steering, and the stability control drags the car down coming out of slow corners just when you're asking for more acceleration—and the electronic nanny can't be turned off. It's not that you can't enjoy driving the Giulia like a sports car. You certainly can. It's just that the 330i does it better—and quite differently.

Where the Alfa is friendly and frisky, the BMW is cold, hard, and focused on the job of going fast. In the real world it feels about as quick as the Alfa, and its engine absolutely sings as it zings. The firm ride provided by the Track Handling package never lets you forget that the 330i is aching to get to a fun road. And when you do, you find that its steering isn't as quick as the Alfa's, but it is every bit as precise. Sadly, steering feel, long a BMW strong point, is a distant memory here.

 

The rest of this BMW is solid. The 330i's brakes are strong and easy to modulate both in rush-hour traffic and when barreling into back-road hairpins. Its grip is inspiring. Our test car circled our skidpad at 0.99 g, which is enough stick to allow it to be hurled into tight turns and come steaming out the other side coolly unperturbed, shrugging off midcorner bumps as if they weren't there. The stability control virtually never interferes, but you'll want to turn off the optional and overzealous lane-keeping feature every time you punch the start button. Better yet, don't order it in the first place.

When you get back into town, the BMW is easily refined enough for use as a daily commuter. The powertrain is superbly smooth, quiet, and punchy. And your kids will never complain about the ride when you're taking them to school, as long as you keep the suspension in Comfort mode.

Interior
 

The Giulia's interior is handsomely styled and assembled with decent materials. Alfa modestly freshened both the car's exterior and interior for 2020, but those models weren't available to us yet, so we made do with a 2019 model. The front seats have aggressive side bolsters that help hold you in place when cornering, but they're also comfortable enough for long drives. The rear seat, however, is cramped around the knees for six-footers. If you have to transport lanky passengers, this is not the car. With 13 cubic feet of trunk space, the Giulia also is less of a cargo ship than the 330i, which offers 17 cubic feet of cargo room. Both cars make themselves more useful with fold-down rear seatbacks. We're not putting top priority on infotainment systems here, but we must call out the Alfa for its clumsy interface, and its features and graphics are strictly average. If you're on the fence about the Giulia, check out the 2020 model with its updated interface.

The BMW's cabin is a class above the Alfa's. Everything you see or touch is richer and more expensive in feel. The cabin materials are better throughout, the instrument panel has a sewn cover, and the infotainment system looks more modern, has more features, and is easier to operate. More important for everyday duty, the 330i's rear seat is commodious enough for tall passengers, and its trunk is more capacious than the Alfa's. The Bimmer clearly is the more practical, better-outfitted sedan.

The Bottom Line

Both of these cars have what it takes to make an enthusiast happy. But beyond that they're as different as Chianti and Riesling. The Giulia's sheetmetal is voluptuous, and its personality is friendly, engaging, and accessible in a fun-spirited kind of way. The BMW, by comparison, is a steely-eyed athlete, hungry to devour a piece of road—any road—with cool, unflappable detachment. It's all business. And yet, the better back-road car also is the better everyday transportation device, offering more room, superior comfort, nicer furnishings, and more cargo space—and yes, for a significantly higher price. But, in this case, you get what you pay for.

In this comparison, the BMW 330i, to paraphrase David E., does the better job of successfully bridging the gap between the diametrically opposed automotive requirements of fun and practicality—between wanting a sports car and needing a sedan. The BMW 330i is the better answer to the enthusiast's dilemma.

Specifications

2019 BMW 330i

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$59,220 (base price: $41,245)

ENGINE TYPE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement
122 cu in, 1998 cc
Power
255 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque
295 lb-ft @ 1550 rpm

TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 13.7-in vented disc/13.6-in vented disc
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, F: 225/40R-19 93Y ★ R: 255/35R-19 96Y ★

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 112.2 in
Length: 185.7 in
Width: 71.9 in
Height: 56.8 in
Passenger volume: 95 cu ft
Trunk volume: 17 cu ft
Curb weight: 3683 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 5.1 sec
100 mph: 13.8 sec
120 mph: 21.4 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.2 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.9 sec
¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 155 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 151 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.99 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 24 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 42 mpg
Highway range: 650 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 30/26/36 mpg

2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia Q2 Ti Sport

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$52,990 (base price: $44,740)

ENGINE TYPE
turbocharged and intercooled SOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement
122 cu in, 1993 cc
Power
280 hp @ 5200 rpm
Torque
306 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm

TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): multilink/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 13.0-in vented disc/12.6-in vented disc
Tires: Pirelli P Zero Run Flat, F: 225/40R-19 89W AR R: 255/35R-19 92W AR

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.9 in
Length: 182.8 in
Width: 73.2 in
Height: 56.5 in
Passenger volume: 94 cu ft
Trunk volume: 13 cu ft
Curb weight: 3627 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 4.6 sec
100 mph: 12.2 sec
120 mph: 18.9 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 5.9 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.8 sec
¼-mile: 13.3 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 149 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.93 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 32 mpg
Highway range: 480 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 27/24/33 mpg

Read More

2019 Honda Accord Hybrid vs. 2019 Honda Insight: Two Hybrids, One Better Honda Buy

2019 Honda Accord Hybrid vs. 2019 Honda Insight: Two Hybrids, One Better Honda Buy

By   15:28

Honda's two mainstream hybrid sedans seemingly chase a similar buyer, but the Accord Hybrid and Insight have less in common than one might think. Both offer fuel-sipping electrified powertrains, four doors, and room for four adults to stretch out and stow their luggage in adequately sized trunks. We've tested both, but which one makes the better hybrid?

Face Off
 

For this comparison we've pitted our long-term 2019 Honda Insight Touring—itself a nearly loaded example—against a 2019 Accord hybrid Touring to see which one provides the best mix of driving enjoyment, fuel efficiency, creature comforts, and value. Before you blow up our comments section complaining that one of these plays in the compact-car segment while the other is clearly a mid-size family sedan, consider that the Insight's base price of $23,860 is but $2390 less than the entry point for the Accord hybrid.

At the Touring trim level, the two cars are further apart in price, with our Insight Touring coming in at $28,985 and the Accord hybrid Touring costing $35,920. Both cars come standard with Honda's suite of driver-assistance features, a power moonroof, and 17-inch aluminum wheels. The Accord's powertrain consists of a more powerful 2.0-liter inline-four and two motor/generators, a combination that's good for a combined 212 horsepower. The Insight's total of 151 horses comes from a smaller 1.5-liter four and a pair of motor/generators.

On the Road

The Insight is one of the better handling small hybrid cars on the road today, which is no surprise considering it shares its platform with the pleasingly athletic Honda Civic. A comfortable ride and direct steering help the Insight feel both engaging and somewhat luxurious. That said, the Accord hybrid offers more fluid handling and a quieter on-road demeanor that elevates it above its little brother.

Where the Insight shines is in the fuel-economy realm, handily beating the larger Accord hybrid in terms of EPA ratings. While the Accord scores an official 48 mpg across its city, highway, and combined estimates, the Insight's results of 55 mpg city, 49 highway, and 52 combined appear more promising. Stepping up to the Insight Touring, though, drops those ratings to 51/45/48. On our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, the Insight Touring delivered 47 mpg while the Accord hybrid Touring managed just 41.

Speaking of test results, a 2018 Accord hybrid (mechanically identical to the 2019 model) out-accelerated the less powerful Insight in all of our tests except in the 50-to-70-mph metric, where the two hybrids tied with a 5.8-second result. The times are close, though, and in practice both models offer plentiful power for scooting around town or merging into fast-moving highway traffic. With a zero-to-60-mph time of 7.0 seconds, the Accord hybrid is but 0.6 second quicker to that mark than the Insight. The Insight's engine drones loudly during acceleration and sounds less polished than the Accord hybrid's, but the smaller Honda's powertrain is more seamless in its transitions between gas and electric power. The Accord comes off as less refined when driven spiritedly, its engine noticeably switching on and off as its driver lifts off the accelerator to enter a corner or gets back into the throttle upon exit.

Interior

Although just eight cubic feet separate the Insight and the Accord hybrid in terms of passenger volume, the Accord's interior feels positively massive in comparison to the smaller Insight, particularly in the rear-seat area and its available legroom. Both will fit four adults just fine, but those relegated to the back seat will undoubtedly vote for the Accord. In our testing, the Accord beat the Insight's carry-on capacity by accommodating seven cases inside its trunk versus the Insight's six. 

 

Likewise, the Accord's interior styling appears more modern and elegant than the Insight's. Both cars come with touchscreen infotainment as standard, and in the Touring models, the screens themselves are 8.0-inch units featuring both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. A 10-speaker stereo is included on both the Insight Touring and Accord hybrid Touring, as is in-dash navigation and SiriusXM satellite radio. The Accord Hybrid Touring 's additional tech features include a wireless device charging pad and near-field communication capability for easier device pairing, neither of which are offered on the Insight.

Conclusion

It's undeniable that the Insight makes for a better hybrid. We have no doubt that it would satisfy hybrid buyers, and its decidedly mainstream exterior styling is far more discreet than some compact hybrids such the Toyota Prius, although the Insight did lose out to the 2020 Toyota Corolla hybrid when we lined them up door handle to door handle. But from the Honda store, the Accord is the hybrid we'd rather live with day after day. Its more spacious cabin, superior driving dynamics, and still-fantastic fuel economy makes it a better all-around package than the Insight, but we might recommend a lower trim level than the full-bore Touring to keep its price in check.


Specifications

2019 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$35,920 (base price: $35,920)

POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter inline-4, 143 hp, 129 lb-ft; permanent-magnet synchronous AC motor, 181 hp, 232 lb-ft; combined output, 212 hp; 1.1-kWh lithium-ion battery pack

TRANSMISSION
1-speed direct-drive

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 12.3-in vented disc/11.1-in disc
Tires: Michelin Energy Saver A/S, 225/50R-17 94V M+S

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.4 in
Length: 192.2 in
Width: 73.3 in
Height: 57.1 in
Passenger volume: 103 cu ft
Trunk volume: 17 cu ft
Curb weight: 3404 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS*
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.4 sec
60 mph: 7.0 sec
100 mph: 20.3 sec
110 mph: 27.0 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.8 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.9 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.8 sec
¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 115 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 189 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g

C/D FUEL ECONOMY*
Observed: 40 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 42 mpg
Highway range: 530 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 48/48/48 mpg

*test results from a 2018 model

2019 Honda Insight Touring

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$28,985 (base price: $28,985)

POWERTRAIN
permanent-magnet synchronous AC motor, 129 hp, 197 lb-ft; DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 1.5-liter inline-4, 107 hp, 99 lb-ft; combined power rating, 151 hp; 1.2-kWh lithium-ion battery pack

TRANSMISSION
1-speed direct-drive

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 11.1-in vented disc/10.2-in disc
Tires: Continental ProContact TX, 215/50R-17 91H M+S

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 in
Length: 183.6 in
Width: 71.6 in
Height: 55.6 in
Passenger volume: 95 cu ft
Trunk volume: 15 cu ft
Curb weight: 3062 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 7.6 sec
100 mph: 25.1 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.8 sec
¼-mile: 16.1 sec @ 86 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 114 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 41 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 46 mpg
Highway range: 480 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 48/51/45 mpg

Read More

The 2020 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 with 760 horsepower faces off against the 650-hp Chevy Camaro ZL1 1LE.

The 2020 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 with 760 horsepower faces off against the 650-hp Chevy Camaro ZL1 1LE.

By   15:19

Calling this a rematch is absurd, but we're doing it anyway. Now the Camaro and Mustang are on new platforms and make more power, and both can lap a racetrack faster than their predecessors. During the '12 test, the Mustang enjoyed a considerable power advantage, but it was the less expensive and more sophisticated Camaro that took the crown.

For 2020, the engineers at Ford Performance have cooked up the latest ultimate Mustang, the supercharged Ford Mustang Shelby GT500. But Chevy hasn't been sleeping on the job, and their supercharged 2019 Chevy Camaro ZL1 1LE has been quietly waiting for this fight. Ready for a battle between the quickest and most powerful Camaro and Mustang? Let's get this fight started.
 

Face Off

The Mustang and Camaro fight started back in 1967. Add up the power from their supercharged V-8s and you'll get over 1400 horsepower. Together they have 17 forward gears, and if you couldn't choose one and had to buy both you'd be writing a check for a little more than $168,000. 

 

As it was eight years ago, the Shelby remains the more powerful and more expensive of the two. The GT500's 5.2-liter supercharged double-overhead-cam 32-valve V-8 not only revs to 7500 rpm, it produces 760 horsepower at 7300 rpm and 625 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm. A new seven-speed dual-clutch transmission supplied by Tremec is the only gearbox available. There's no manual this time around, and while a manual might not be quicker than the dual-clutch, it'd probably be more fun.

Chevy's supercharged 6.2-liter V-8 is down 110 horsepower from the Ford, but its price is also considerably lower. The small-block has half as many valves activated by pushrods a single camshaft tucked into the block. The 6500-rpm redline and 650 horsepower don't quite light up the spec box like the GT500, but its 650 lb-ft of torque is superior, and it hits at a more accessible 3600 rpm.

Manual-transmission fans have an easy choice as the Chevy offers a standard six-speed manual, but in the interest of an even matchup we opted for the $1595 automatic. The Camaro's 10-speed automatic not only has a torque converter, it was developed in partnership with Ford, and it's a version of the unit used in the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and the Mustang GT. With the $7,500 ZL1 1LE Extreme Track Performance Package, which includes 19-inch forged wheels, Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperCar 3R tires, Multimatic spool valve dampers (to replace the magnetorheological units), and that big carbon-fiber rear spoiler, the Camaro's base price is $72,195.

The Shelby's engine is significantly louder than the Camaro's, and the Mustang is also heavier. At 4,059 pounds, the Mustang weighs nearly 200 pounds more than its rival.

On the Road

With nearly 200 pounds less mass and with a weight distribution closer to 50/50, the 2019 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE is just as quick as the Mustang despite making less horsepower. At the test track, it beats the GT500 to 60 mph by .2 second, 3.4 seconds versus 3.6. However, the Ford's rear tires eventually hook up, and its horsepower takes charge. It then outruns the Camaro to 100 mph by .3 second, and by 150 mph the gap is stretched to more than 4.0 seconds.

But these are muscle cars, and it's the quarter-mile that really matters. In that race, it's essentially a dead heat. A tire-smoking, fighting-for-traction dead heat, with the Mustang's 11.4-second run at 132 mph just besting the Camaro's time of 11.5 seconds at 124 mph.

Even with its 2.85:1 final drive ratio, the Camaro averaged a fuel economy of just 14 mpg, a single mile per gallon ahead of the Mustang, which has 3.73 gears. Its range, however, is far superior to the Shelby's. The Mustang's fuel tank is only 16 gallons, so it's sucked dry after only 200 miles of highway driving.

Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE on the run

At the test track, the Camaro also outgripped and outstopped the Mustang, with a 1.17-g skidpad performance and stops from 70 mph in 137 feet and from 100 mph in 268 feet. The Mustang trailed but not by much. Its 1.13-g skidpad performance is impressive considering it carries 56.6 percent of its 4059 pounds over the front wheels. It stops from 70 mph in 142 feet and from 100 mph in 279 feet.

On the street, we prefer the Shelby's brake feel and firm pedal action, and the response and precision of its dual-clutch transmission nearly rivals Porsche's PDK. "This dual-clutch has to be the best Ford transmission ever," said one editor. "Shifts are crisp, and Track mode makes them instant."

Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Starts under $74,000 

Unfortunately, the Mustang's steering is numb compared to the Camaro's, and its chassis isn't as sorted. The ZL1 is more stable, and it puts its power down better with its wider rubber, a more sophisticated traction-control system, and an excellent electronic limited-slip differential. Toss it around, and the Shelby feels smaller and lighter than it is, but it's also a bit skittish and less forgiving. It always feels like one false move, one mistake, one miscalculation, and you could easily end up in a ditch.

Although both cars offer the kind of speed better suited for the track, the Camaro is easier to drive quickly. The fun is more accessible and therefore more easily enjoyed. But the sacrifice for all that stability is ride comfort. The Mustang's suspension is al dente, while the Camaro's is uncooked. It's like hitting your head on the headliner again stiff. By comparison, a standard Camaro ZL1 with the magnetorheological dampers, which are also used in the GT500, rides with the pillowy, cloudlike float of a 1976 Eldorado convertible.
 

Interior

We keep waiting for a Camaro to come along with a great interior. The ZL1's cabin is visually prosaic, functionally challenged, and cheap to the touch. There's too much ugly plastic, including paddle shifters that feel flimsy, and mundane gauges with a pitifully small gear readout. That's a major oversight in a muscle car with 10 ratios to keep track of. Your view of the outside world rivals a solitary cell at Sing Sing, and the Camaro's two large center-mounted air-conditioning vents are located perfectly to cool the muscle car's shifter and perhaps, if you're lucky, your abdomen. 

But Chevy didn't get it all wrong. The Camaro's Recaro seats are even more comfortable than the Mustang's—and the Mustang has outstanding seats—and the driving position is spot on. Despite its significant discount, the ZL1 was also packed with features not found on our Mustang, including navigation, heated and cooled seats, a heated steering wheel, a back seat, power seats, and wireless phone charging. We also have to give Chevy kudos for including a tire temperature readout on the digital display. 

The Mustang's interior looks, feels, and functions better than the Camaro's, although some editors question the decision to give the GT500 a rotary shifter. Yes, it worked visually in the futuristic cabin of the GT supercar, or a Ford Fusion, but some feel it doesn't have the right vibe in the Shelby, which reeks of retro both inside and out. Its paddle shifters are magnesium.

Although the Shelby's digital gauge cluster also clashes with the cars born-from-the-1960s sensibility, the graphics are appealing and informative. In Track mode, the layout reconfigures itself, prioritizing engine speed and gear ratios. Ford also kept a couple of old-school analog gauges for oil pressure and oil temperature high on the center stack where they can't be missed.

That kind of attention to detail and thoughtful design are also found under the Shelby's hood. With a magnesium strut tower brace, carbon-fiber composite panels, and a menacing cobra emblem atop its supercharger, its engine compartment is far more finished and attractive than the Camaro's, which is unromantically utilitarian. Chevy clearly saved some time and money by not dressing the ZL1's engine room.

 

Conclusion

With the Corvette going mid-engine, these two machines, along with Dodge's Hellcats, are keeping the traditional American fire-breathing, rear-drive, front-engine muscle car alive. It's a commendable feat considering our society continues to accelerate toward autonomy and electrification like a drunken hipster on a rented moped. But after two days of track testing and several days of driving around the barren desert landscape of Southern California, a winner, a clear winner, of this comparison test, failed to materialize. Whatever you're driving at any given moment feels like the best one.

Both the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 and the Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE live up to the hype. Either will put a big dumb smile on your face while shredding an expensive set of summer tires in the process. But these are sophisticated cars. Their ability to turn and stop are only surpassed by their unbridled power and tire-destroying skills. But we pick winners here, and the winner is the Camaro. Its biggest advantage is that it's simply a better value. There's a lot we love about the GT500—the ride quality, interior design, and its more sophisticated powertrain—but the more affordable ZL1 1LE manages to match or surpass the Shelby's performance while offering a much longer list of features. Spend the stack of money saved on gas and Goodyears. You're going to need them.


Specifications

2019 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

PRICE AS TESTED
$75,985 (base price: $72,195)

ENGINE TYPE
supercharged and intercooled pushrod 16-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement
376 cu in, 6162 cc
Power
650 hp @ 6400 rpm
Torque
650 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm

TRANSMISSION
10-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 15.4-in vented disc/14.4-in vented disc
Tires: Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperCar 3R, F: 305/30R-19 (98Y) TPC, R: 325/30R-19 (101Y) TPC

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 110.7 in
Length: 188.3 in
Width: 74.7 in
Height: 52.0 in
Passenger volume: 83 cu ft
Trunk volume: 9 cu ft
Curb weight: 3886 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 3.4 sec
100 mph: 7.4 sec
150 mph: 19.2 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 1.8 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.1 sec
¼-mile: 11.5 sec @ 124 mph
Top speed (mfr's claim): 190 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 137 ft
Braking, 100–0 mph: 268 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.17 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 14 mpg

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 16/13/21 mpg

2020 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe

PRICE AS TESTED
$93,870 (base price: $73,995)

ENGINE TYPE
supercharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement
315 cu in, 5163 cc
Power
760 hp @ 7500 rpm
Torque
625 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm

TRANSMISSION
7-speed dual-clutch automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 16.5-in vented disc/14.5-in vented disc
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2, F: 305/30R-20 (103Y) FP, R: 315/30R-20 (104Y) FP

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.0 in
Length: 190.2 in
Width: 76.6 in
Height: 53.8 in
Passenger volume: 55 cu ft
Trunk volume: 14 cu ft
Curb weight: 4059 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 3.6 sec
100 mph: 7.1 sec
150 mph: 15.1 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 1.9 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.1 sec
¼-mile: 11.4 sec @ 132 mph
Top speed (mfr's claim): 180 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 142 ft
Braking, 100–0 mph: 279 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.13 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 13 mpg

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 14/12/18 mpg

Read More

The Light-Duty 2020 Chevy Silverado 1500, 2019 Ford F-150, And The 2020 Ram 1500: Fight For Trailer-Towing, Fuel-Sipping Supremacy

The Light-Duty 2020 Chevy Silverado 1500, 2019 Ford F-150, And The 2020 Ram 1500: Fight For Trailer-Towing, Fuel-Sipping Supremacy

By   15:54

We know what you're thinking: Didn't you just pick the Ram 1500 as a 10Best winner? Why are you comparing these trucks again so soon? Well, upsets happen all the time, and when you narrow the focus to a single model rather than the entire range, it's possible that the Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado 1500 beats the Ram. So we lined up the Big Three's new half-ton diesels and let them slug it out.

It was a fair fight. We gathered four-door crew-cab versions with four-wheel drive and two-speed transfer cases, five-seat leather interiors, and five-figure asking prices that start with "6." In other words: These aren't strictly work trucks. These pickups fulfill a daily mission not unlike a large SUV, albeit with heftier towing capacities (see above chart).

A diesel in a Ram 1500 is nothing new. The EcoDiesel brand has already been through an emissions scandal involving its VM Motori–supplied 3.0-liter V-6. Unavailable last year, the turbo-diesel is back with a bit more power. It now makes 260 ponies and (more important to the coal-rolling community) 480 pound-feet of torque, gains of 20 horses and 60 pound-feet over the previous gen. The EcoDiesel, which comes with a mandatory 3.92:1 final drive, is a $5090 upgrade over the base gas V-6.

Chevy's powertrain shines all the time but never so brightly as when it's hooked to a 6650-pound trailer. If all we ever did was tow, the Duramax might be enough to win us over.

Ford was second to jump on the light-duty-diesel bandwagon when it began offering its own turbo 3.0-liter V-6 for the 2018 model year. The engine comes from Europe, a cousin of the turbo-diesel that Jaguar Land Rover installs in Range Rovers, among others. It is the weakling in this test, with 250 horsepower and 440 pound-feet. Ford complicates things by offering the diesel in different trims for different amounts. In our test truck, it's a $4750 option.

Newest on the scene is Chevrolet's—wait for it—3.0-liter six. Guess what? It was also developed in Europe, but unlike the others, it is wholly new and arranges the cylinders in a straight line. Just as Ford has repurposed the "Power Stroke" branding of its heavy-duty engine for its light-duty six, Chevy christens this turbo-diesel "Duramax" in the hope that you'll make a mental connection to the 910-lb-ft monster that goes into the brand's HD trucks. The Duramax makes the most power of the bunch, with 277 horses on tap, and the second-most twist, with 460 pound-feet. Also like Ford's setup, the cost for the diesel option depends on trim. In a Silverado LTZ, it's a $2495 charge.

The Ford and Chevy share a transmission, but you would never know it by driving them. It isn't so much that the Ford's version is conspicuous, it's that the Silverado's works as seamlessly as the inline-six that turns it. Chevy's powertrain shines all the time but never so brightly as when it's hooked to a 6650-pound trailer. If all we ever did with one of these trucks was tow, the Duramax might be enough to win us over. It is that nice.

The Silverado also tops a lot of objective stats, including payload, as-tested price, and acceleration. It is the lightest in the test, too, which pokes a rusty hole in Ford's aluminum-body strategy. Even the fully kitted Ram 1500 is lighter than the F-series pickup.

With big fuel tanks and efficient diesel engines, these trucks offer long-haul range and, in the Ram's case, near-luxury-car comfort.

But while this truck, equipped with the Duramax and the Z71 off-road package, rides better than other current-gen Silverados we've tested, it is no match for the Ram's supple ride and adept handling. The scary thing for the competition is that the Ram isn't just good for a truck; it's just plain good. The F-150, on the other hand, never settles down. It bucks, wiggles, shimmies, and hops endlessly after an otherwise minor bump in the road. We thought attaching a trailer might calm the ride, but it didn't.

Objectively, Ram's EcoDiesel isn't the best at doing truck things. As the charts reveal, the Ram's payload is lower than the Chevy's, and its tow rating is topped by the Ford's. But the differences are negligible. About the only gripe anyone had with the Ram was its labored feeling when trying to keep a 70-mph pace with a trailer in tow; 65 was just fine.

The real knockout punch came at the fuel pump. Returning 30 mpg, the Ram bests its competitors by a wide margin. We should note that there is a slim but very real possibility that the Ram didn't experience a single particulate-filter-regen event during the miles we logged. These periodic self-cleanings—think colon blow for your exhaust—consume extra fuel. Even if we doubled the worst-case scenario, adding half a gallon of diesel to our tally, the Ram would still have averaged a best-in-test 27 mpg. Towing economy was essentially a wash, with only a 1-mpg spread among the pickups.
 

In the end, this wasn't anything more than a sparring match for the Ram 1500. The upset will have to wait. We're sure that Ford and Chevy will mount another title challenge soon enough.

3rd Place: Ford F-150 Power Stroke

Pros: Tow-capacity champ, aluminum body won't rust.
Cons: Heavy despite prevalent aluminum, atrocious ride, chintzy interior. 

2nd Place: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Duramax

Pros: Velvety engine, silky trans, perfect brake feel.
Cons: Bland exterior, uninspired interior, can't match the comfort of the segment's best.

1st Place: Ram 1500 EcoDiesel

Pros: Remarkable ride and handling, as polished as a luxury car, sips fuel.
Cons: A little labored with a moderate trailer, but only a little.

Read More

2020 Subaru Legacy vs. 2020 Nissan Altima vs. 2020 Toyota Camry vs. 2020 Hyundai Sonata vs. 2019 Honda Accord: The Best of The Best

2020 Subaru Legacy vs. 2020 Nissan Altima vs. 2020 Toyota Camry vs. 2020 Hyundai Sonata vs. 2019 Honda Accord: The Best of The Best

By   15:44

5th Place: 2020 Subaru Legacy

The boxer-four reluctantly does its work with a bellyache moan, and wind noise seeps into the cabin around 50 mph, earlier than in the competitors. The CVT is sometimes indecisive at part throttle; revs build, momentarily pause, resume climbing, pause again, then climb some more. Push the accelerator to the floor and the flat-four bellows as the Legacy plods to 60 mph in a slowest-in-test 8.0 seconds. The Subaru doesn't need all-wheel drive to harness its 182 horsepower, which means that extra driveline hardware is dead weight unless you're stuck in a snowbank. At 3540 pounds, the Legacy weighs 111 pounds more than the all-wheel-drive Altima, and it suffers a 3-mpg hit in observed fuel economy relative to the most efficient cars in this test.

The Subaru does offer excellent outward visibility from the driver's seat. It's also a solid value, with a list of driver-assistance and convenience features to rival the Hyundai. But those small victories can't outweigh its dynamic shortcomings. Among the many better sedans, the Altima has erased the Legacy's all-wheel-drive advantage. That leaves the 11.6-inch touchscreen as the Subaru's single distinguishing trait, and even that is flawed. The graphics belong on a children's tablet, and the response time can be sluggish. The vertical orientation also means that the Android Auto and Apple CarPlay interfaces use only about one-third of the available real estate, appearing smaller than they do in the Honda and the Hyundai.

Losing is never easy, Sport, but I know something that will ease the pain. Let me buy you a Beef 'n Cheddar.

4th Place: 2020 Nissan Altima
 

 

Pros: Holds its own in corners, CVT does a decent job mimicking a conventional automatic.
Cons: Flinty ride, abysmal rearward visibility, light on convenience features.
Verdict: An injection of character into the Altima gives us hope for Nissan.

Yes, we're guilty of grading on a curve here, but second to last strikes us as a big win for the Altima. Notice that it nearly snuck into third, ahead of the sales-giant Camry. After years of pulse-lowering performance, the Altima is finally showing signs of life.

There are shades of sports sedan lurking in the Nissan's chassis tuning. The all-season Hankooks hang on to the road with a tenacious 0.91 g of lateral grip. With its quick and light steering, the Altima turns eagerly into bends. And the firm brake pedal is easily modulated.

The harder you push it, though, the more disjointed the Altima feels. It is faster than it is fluid. Some drivers found the steering too quick and darty. We all agreed the ride is brittle and needs more damping compliance.

There's a lot of Maxima in the Altima's styling and some sports sedan in its handling. If its optional all-wheel-drive system stops the sale of a Rogue, we consider that a win.

Nissan's stubborn devotion to the CVT finally pays off with some agreeable manners. At part throttle, the transmission executes almost convincing, simulated upshifts. They allow the revs to rise and fall as the car accelerates so that the 2.5-liter inline-four never lingers on a discordant note for too long. You have to dig in your spurs if you want the Altima to gallop. Unlike the lively chassis, the powertrain prefers to loaf. It's good at that, at least. Despite lugging and churning that all-wheel-drive hardware, the Nissan tied the Toyota and the Hyundai at 31 mpg. Still, the all-wheel-drive system is probably more trouble than it's worth. Opting for it hikes up the rear of the car, which, combined with the high parcel shelf and the large center brake light, gives the driver a perfect view of the sky behind them.

With wind, engine, and road noise equally in check, the Altima is tranquil at highway speeds. Cushy front seats swallow you like the 40-year-old sofa in Mom's basement, although they don't offer much in the way of long-haul support. Everything you grab, push, pull, turn, and touch inside the cabin looks and feels right. It's the hard plastic expanses in between that make the Altima appear cheaper than it is. The Nissan is also missing a number of features expected at this price, such as heated seats. If a $26,183 Camry comes with adaptive cruise control, so should a $30,720 Altima. A little more stuff would go a long way here.

3rd Place: 2020 Toyota Camry

Pros: Assertive powertrain, competent cornering, as comfortable as ever.
Cons: Gritty engine vibrations, cringe-inducing styling, makes a Michigan winter look cheery.
Verdict: It drives better than you think, even if it is still a Camry in earnest.

The Camry's beige phase is finally over. Newly edgy Toyota is now experimenting with 50 shades of Camry gray. We counted seven different grayscale finishes on the driver's door panel alone. The seats are upholstered with cinder bolsters, smoky inserts, and dark-steel stitching. Painted in complementary any-car silver, this particular Camry won't help Toyota shake the car-as-an-appliance stigma.

That's a shame, because if you get intimate with a Camry on a winding road, you'll discover it's a freak. In a good way. The most powerful engine in the test revs with more verve and stretches higher on the tach, topping out at 6800 rpm. Compared with the labored exertion of the naturally aspirated Nissan and Subaru engines, the Toyota four-cylinder pulls assertively in around-town passing maneuvers. Graceful shifts from the eight-speed automatic make even the best CVTs feel gelatinous. And no matter how close you come to its limits, the Camry never loses composure. The heft of the steering doesn't waver, and the dampers always keep body motions in check.

"Owning the middle is what Camrys do, right? We're not crazy about the exterior. Or the interior, really. But like the best Camrys of the past, it just works."

This is not the car's public persona, though. Drive it like an accountant would and the Toyota disappears around you thanks to pillowy damping, arrow-straight highway tracking, and comfortable seats. The Camry is the same reliably predictable transportation that it's always been to indifferent drivers. That's a good thing, because the Camry is a shining example that an enthusiast's desires and a commuter's needs aren't diametrically opposed. A car that handles well will always feel controlled, and a car that rides well will corner confidently over broken pavement.

The Camry's unexpected competence isn't enough to spark any passion, though. We respect it, but we don't aspire to own one. And despite the stylists' best efforts to scare onlookers into noticing it, the Camry's design is no more suggestive than a Land's End shirt. Mostly, we just want to look away.

The interior, awash in simple plastics, is even more disappointing. The urethane steering wheel is as inviting as the Bowflex in your spare bedroom. The screens in the center stack and instrument cluster are small, low-resolution things. And the engine emits a diesel-like grittiness at low rpm that becomes a thrashy buzz when pushed harder. For us, living with these flaws isn't worth the discount the Camry offers over the competitors that finished ahead of it.

2nd Place: 2020 Hyundai Sonata

Pros: Assertive, torquey engine; loaded with tech; big parking-lot presence.
Cons: Awkwardly high seating, confused suspension tuning, a tornado of wind noise.
Verdict: Despite constant improvement, Hyundai still does value better than dynamics.

Looking almost Audi-esque in profile and stuffed with more tech and luxury than any of the other sedans, the Sonata gives off the impression that it's been entered into the wrong test. It hasn't. This is just typical Hyundai delivering more car than you pay for.

It's fitting that the turbocharged cars placed first and second in this comparison test. By pumping more air into an otherwise meek four-cylinder, a turbo breathes enthusiasm into the car. Thanks to its heap of low-end torque, you'd never guess that the Sonata's 180-hp 1.6-liter engine is the least powerful of the five here. And while the Camry hits 60 mph in the same 7.3 seconds, the Sonata feels more refined and less strained in accomplishing the feat. Around town, the Hyundai's eight-speed automatic shuffles gears quickly and efficiently, with none of the sluggishness inherent in a CVT.

The suspension dithers between too soft and too stiff, depending on what you're doing at the moment. Take a corner at speed and the Sonata rolls only slightly less than the Subaru. Drive over a patchwork asphalt repair and the Michelin tires thwack the road with short, hard hits.

A small tornado's worth of wind noise makes its way into the cabin, which is surprising because the Sonata is the only car here with dual-pane glass in the front doors. Both tall and short drivers found the Hyundai's seating position too high. With no shortage of crossovers available for drivers who need to sit on a perch, why sully sedans with this clumsy flaw? The Sonata's rear seat is roomy for two people but not three. Strangely, Hyundai scallops the headliner only over the outboard seats.

"LED lights run up the fender and give the Sonata the penciled-in eyebrows of your sweet Aunt Mildred. Interior design and quality are class leading."

The Sonata distracts from its rough edges with leather, screens, and dramatic styling to convince you the car costs another $5000. The list of features on our Limited model includes a digital instrument cluster, heated and ventilated front seats, a competent lane-centering system, and the ability to move the car into and out of a tight parking space with the key fob while the driver stands next to the car.

This Sonata drives better and looks more fashionable than any prior generation, but its presiding strength is the same as any Hyundai's: value. That current strategy has vaulted Hyundai from bottom-rung fodder to front-of the-pack finisher, but it might be time to shift the focus. Comparo winners offer a level of polish that a value play rarely achieves.

1st Place: 2019 Honda Accord


Pros: Finely tuned control calibrations and responses, unnecessarily quick, a rational purchase.
Cons: Sloppy active lane-keeping assist, there are quieter competitors.
Verdict: A wholesome family sedan that knows how to cut loose.

Honda's 3209-pound sedan drives nothing like a 3200-pound mid-engine Cayman. And yet, the Accord comes off as Porsche-like in its excellence. Similar to the Porsche, the Honda is the product of an all-encompassing vision. The major controls work in symphonic harmony, and the character of the machine is palpable in your every interaction with it.

For a family sedan, the Accord is far more gratifying than it needs to be. It brakes with a progressive pedal, steers with verve, and motors away from a stoplight with authority. Pitch and roll are tightly controlled by a taut suspension, but the dampers deftly round off the sharp hits. "The chassis and steering are absurdly good for a car in this category," noted staff editor Annie White.

Honda's CVT is smoother, the faux shifts never feel clumsy. Put the shifter into Sport mode and the transmission response follows your right foot obediently. The Accord's 192-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter walked away from the other sedans when it hit 60 mph in a legitimately quick 6.6 seconds. Yet the Honda's appeal has little to do with the numbers. It netted 30 mpg in our drive, landed mid-pack in the skidpad and slalom, and posted a last-place 176-foot stop from 70 mph without shading our opinion of its aptitude—well, that braking number could be better. All this with the CVT. (Remember, there's an even more engaging manual-transmission model.)

"Think Olympic athlete dressed in pleated khakis. Think affordable sports sedan. Think about this: When something better than the Accord is built, chances are Honda built it."

It's a sensible thing, too. The Accord offers comfort on par with the Camry and outward visibility to rival the Legacy. There's plenty of storage for objects small and large, with smartly designed in-cabin cubbies and the largest trunk in the test. And while every sedan here offers generous legroom, the Accord is the complete package, with more elbowroom and overhead clearance than the others can boast.

 

If you want to drive a family sedan to work and back with the full suite of driving assistants active, you might want a softer and quieter car than this. But recalibrating the Accord to accommodate those desires would dilute the Honda's charm. The Accord is always ready to drop its family obligations and unwind a coiled road as though it's the only thing that matters. And that matters to us.

Read More

2020 Genesis G70 vs. 2020 Volvo S60: Which Sedan Does Sport and Luxury Better?

2020 Genesis G70 vs. 2020 Volvo S60: Which Sedan Does Sport and Luxury Better?

By   15:24

 

Despite the influx of SUVs and crossovers, the compact luxury sports sedan remains a thing. It's still a thing because, when done right, a small sedan can define and elevate a brand. This is a segment with influence, and it remains healthy and full of cars fighting to distinguish themselves by combining sportiness, luxury, design, and technology.

Genesis clearly understood that when it created the G70, and as the brand's first attempt in this space, the Genesis G70 manages to combine performance, value, and luxury so compellingly that we gave it our highest honor, a 10Best award for 2019, not to mention a spot in our long-term garage. Volvo has been building cars for this segment for decades. Its freshest entry, the Volvo S60, is an attractive four-door with the best seats this side of StubHub. The S60, however, is essentially a front-wheel-drive player in a rear-drive field. Like many of its competitors, the Volvo offers all-wheel drive, but only as an option on certain versions. How do these two upscale sedans fare against each other when lined up door handle to door handle?

Face Off

For $45,645, it's possible to get a G70 with a 365-hp twin-turbo 3.3-liter V-6. But, instead of a lightly optioned test car with a big engine, we went for a well-equipped rear-drive G70 with the standard turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-four making 252 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque. In the interest of parity to the S60, we opted for the available eight-speed automatic transmission rather than the standard six-speed manual, something the S60 doesn't offer. At an as-tested $44,895, our G70 came well-optioned with $8450 in tech and luxury features. The $3850 Prestige package came with our sole performance-enhancing option: 19-inch wheels wrapped with Michelin Pilot Sport 4 summer tires .

After the previous model had served the brand for nearly a decade unchanged, Volvo redesigned the S60 last year. In selecting an S60 to face the G70, we went for the entry-level 250-hp T5 powertrain—also a turbo 2.0-liter inline-four mated to an eight-speed automatic, only mounted transversely rather than horizontally as in the G70—which starts at $36,050. The 316-hp T6 model can be had for just over $40K and comes with all-wheel drive, but like the G70, we went for a well-equipped model for this comparison test. At an as-tested $46,240, our S60 T5 cost a touch more than the G70, but take away its optional pebble-grey metallic paint and the lime wood inlays, and their prices are nearly identical.  

 

On the Road

The Genesis shines brightest on a winding road, where its taut chassis and sticky summer tires shine. The G70's steering transmits a good deal of feedback, undulations in the pavement come through to the driver's hands, and the secure rise and fall of steering effort during hard cornering is apparent. In contrast, the S60's steering is bit aloof, and while it's quick to react to inputs, feedback is absent, which erodes confidence when you're hustling.

The base engine in the G70 is a version of the same corporate four-cylinder found in other Hyundai and Kia products, and while it isn't bad, it isn't something that makes us look forward to spinning it toward its redline. The eight-speed automatic will occasionally slur a shift and sometimes even shifts too harshly. The Genesis is slower than the Volvo both to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile mark by 0.3 second. That's not a huge gap, but we expect stronger straight-line performance once Genesis replaces the 2.0-liter with the parent company's turbo 2.5-liter four.

The Volvo doesn't inspire high-speed cornering antics. Instead, it would prefer you to take it easy and enjoy the smooth ride and the quiet cabin. However, even though the Volvo was quicker at the track than the Genesis, turning in a 6.1-second run to 60 mph and a 14.6-second quarter-mile pass, it still doesn't exude performance. On twisting mountain roads, we found that the transmission was eager to upshift and lazy to downshift, requiring the driver to prod the throttle significantly for any meaningful acceleration. Even though the Volvo's 0.92 g of skidpad grip nearly matched the G70's 0.94-g effort, the two are worlds apart. The G70 resists understeer all the way to the limit, while the Volvo beats on its front tires until they surrender grip.

Interior

The cabin of the Volvo S60 is decorated with beautiful wood inlays, a flowing dashboard, supremely comfortable and supportive seats, and Volvo's vertically oriented touchscreen infotainment system. While the touchscreen works better the more you use it, we do wish for a few actual buttons instead of having to scroll and tap through the system's menus for many basic functions.

The G70's interior takes a different approach but is every bit as rich and inviting as the Volvo's. Leather front seats feature heating, ventilation, and quilted stitching. The instrument panel is driver oriented, and we like that. But a few bits, such as the infotainment system and some switchgear, appear to have been borrowed from Hyundai. Our example also exhibited a whistle of wind rush at speeds above 60 mph that sounded as though a window was cracked open.

Although these two cars are nearly identical on paper in terms of passenger and cargo space, the S60 does have the larger trunk—14 cubic feet versus the G70's 11 cubes—and feels subjectively larger on the inside, especially if you're sitting in the back seat. If we were forced to drive any meaningful distance in one of these cars with three other adults, we'd prefer the Volvo.

Conclusion

The Volvo S60 and Genesis G70 represent distinctly different approaches to the same segment. The Volvo is the more luxurious of the two. Inside and out, its design is more cohesive and elegant. It can't master back roads like the G70, but it is slightly more refined and comfortable than the Genesis. However, we're willing to trade a little bit of luxury and comfort for the Genesis's greater sense of athleticism on twisty pavement. We like our sedans sporty, and the G70 simply is more fun to drive than the S60, yet it remains similarly polished and strong in value. For those reasons, the Genesis wins this round over the Volvo.


Specifications

2020 Volvo S60 T5 Momentum

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$46,240 (base price: $37,045)

ENGINE TYPE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement
120 cu in, 1969 cc
Power
250 hp @ 5500 rpm
Torque
258 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm

TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): control arms/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 12.7-in vented disc/11.9-in disc
Tires: Pirelli P Zero All Season, 235/40R-19 96V M+S VOL

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 113.1 in
Length: 187.4 in
Width: 72.8 in
Height: 56.3 in
Passenger volume: 94 cu ft
Trunk volume: 14 cu ft
Curb weight: 3754 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 6.1 sec
100 mph: 15.2 sec
120 mph: 24.0 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.5 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.7 sec
¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 163 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 25 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 37 mpg
Highway range: 530 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 27/23/34 mpg
 

2020 Genesis G70 2.0T

VEHICLE TYPE
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED
$44,895 (base price: $36,445)

ENGINE TYPE
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement
122 cu in, 1998 cc
Power
252 hp @ 6200 rpm
Torque
260 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm

TRANSMISSION
8-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): struts/multilink
Brakes (F/R): 12.6-in vented disc/12.4-in disc
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4, F: 225/40R-19 (93Y) R: 255/35R-19 (96Y)

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 111.6 in
Length: 184.4 in
Width: 72.8 in
Height: 55.1 in
Passenger volume: 94 cu ft
Trunk volume: 11 cu ft
Curb weight: 3676 lb

C/D
TEST RESULTS
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 6.4 sec
100 mph: 16.2 sec
120 mph: 24.8 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 sec
¼-mile: 14.9 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited, C/D est): 145 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 151 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g

C/D
FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 22 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 31 mpg
Highway range: 480 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 25/22/30 mpg

Read More