Audi S4 vs. BMW 335i xDrive vs. Cadillac ATS4 3.6 vs. Lexus IS 350 AWD vs. Volvo S60 T6
Go ahead. Rank your children in order from worst to best. I’ll wait. Not easy, is it? Yet that’s the task we’ve been given for this month’s Big Test. Small sport sedans are to automotive journalists what paparazzi are to the Kardashians: We wouldn’t exist without them. Flip side of that coin: It’s hard to imagine the car world would be so crammed with smallish, sporting, executive rides if it weren’t for the four-plus-decade-long chorus of praise we’ve collectively hurled at BMW and the 3 Series, including the 2002 before it. Hey, they are good. And not only are the Bimmers good, but all the cars competing with the original are pretty sweet as well. And they’re getting sweeter all the time.
What do we car-writer types dig so much about sport sedans? Handling prowess is muy importante, as far as we’re concerned. Normally, all we’d care about is which one of our five candidates will set your hair on fire the fastest as you whip down a canyon road. However, there are a couple of things working against that particular methodology this month. One is that all five of our players — Audi S4, BMW 335i xDrive, Cadillac ATS4 3.6, Lexus IS 350 AWD, and Volvo S60 T6 AWD R-Design — are all-wheel drive. In the case of the Volvo and the Audi, AWD allows them to be in the contest. Lesser-engined versions of both can be had as front-drivers, and the cars are transformed into performance-oriented machines by the addition of four wheels driven. The other factor is that this is our new Big Test, where adult-themed issues such as safety, value, and fuel efficiency are given much more than short shrift. If all you care about is how well the cars drive, read the Ride and Handling section, and you’re done.
Which of these will set your hair on fire the fastest as you whip down a canyon road?
However, since (apparently) there is more to an automobile than hurling it wantonly around a decreasing-radius turn mere feet away from a 200-foot sheer drop, most of you will want to keep reading. Back quickly to the beginning: I know I’ve personally said very nice things in writing about four of the five contenders (the Lexus is brand-spankin’ new), and as an editorial unit, Motor Trend has sung the praises of each. What am I getting at? The finishing order of this comparison test is sure to make exactly no one happy. But that’s why we publish letters and have comments — so everyone may cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. With all that in mind, let’s start this Big Test.
Ride and Handling
Winner, Cadillac. As associate online editor Benson Kong found, “Ride is firm all the time, in a good, sporty way.” Benson was hardly alone. “Clearly the majority of the funding for this car went to the chassis. The handling is superb. You can just thrash this car and it keeps wanting more,” said associate editor Scott Evans. Why so darn good? Associate road test editor Carlos Lago nailed it: “I, for quite some time, forgot it’s all-wheel drive. It even has the smoothest ride of the group at moderate speeds.” The ATS4 is of course the only car in this group equipped with game-changing magnetorheological shocks, the same ones licensed to Ferrari. The Caddy is also — incredibly — the lightest. Of course, the ATS showed up on all-season tires, which hurt its braking distance and figure-eight time compared with other any ATS we’ve tested, but it truly was the best to drive.
The Audi S4 is the numbers champ of this test, and it’s no slouch in the real world. “This car was just so easy and fun to toss around the canyons,” said associate online editor Erick Ayapana. True, the car suffered from Audi’s notorious “rubbery” steering feel, but as Evans pointed out, “the steering is quick and accurate at least.” However, Kong contended that “for normal driving, steering effort is light and disconnected, and the car feels lazy.” The S4 rides not only firmer than the A4 it’s based on, but it’s also firmer than all the other cars here. That’s good for a Sunday drive, and not so good for a Monday morning slog to the office. The S4 has Audi’s totally trick sport rear differential, which allows you to fully blast out of corners. It was Lago’s favorite part of the car.
Oddly, the BMW features the laziest handling here. As you’re probably aware, BMW has been drifting away from its Ultimate Driving Machine image for several years now, moving more toward a techno/luxury future anchored by ferocious straight-line speed. Said Lago, “I don’t like the steering.” What’s wrong with it? Like the S4s, it’s detached. “Steering actually has some feel. Not a lot, but some,” he continued. Adding all that AWD hardware sure didn’t help the 335ix out. Kong noted that the BMW “feels ready to oversteer.” Its ride was the softest of the group.
The Lexus IS 350 was something of a mixed bag. “Handled surprisingly well,” admitted Mr. Evans, while Kong called it “cold and calculating.” Ayapana felt the AWD hurt the handling and “the steering was a bit heavy, almost hesitant when coming back to center.” Lago noted the car had a “sense of heft” and that the throttle, steering, and ride all “felt heavy.” This car’s ride and handling tradeoff, more than the BMW’s and way more than the Cadillac’s, was compromised by the addition of AWD.
The Audi S4 is the numbers champ of this test, and it’s no slouch in the real world.
I prefer the Volvo S60’s back-road manners to all the cars’ save the Cadillac. I am, apparently, in the minority. “Seems confused in corners,” said Lago. “Like it’s asking, ‘What is this?’ and ‘Why are you doing this to me?'” Kong just logged, “What a handful.” Evans had an opinion similar to mine, but with caveats. “Good weight to the steering. But no feel.” He felt the ride is “just slightly firm.” Kong didn’t really dig how the S60 goes into a corner, “Without knowing how to drive the S60, you get a lot of understeer.”
The Germans run away with this one. Are you seated? Both the 335ix and the S4 hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds and smashed through the quarter mile in 13 seconds flat with nearly identical trap speeds (105.6 mph for the Audi, 105.4 for the BMW). It’s not really news, then, that we collectively judged both cars to have the best engines and transmissions of this comparison. Both cars also feature what we judged to be massively underrated engines. The S4 was the runaway champ around our figure-eight loop, laying down a world-class time of 24.9 seconds. Much of that was the S4’s seven-speed S Tronic transmission. From Ayapana: “Hands down, the best transmission in the group. It’s like it has precognition.”
The same cannot be said for the dated six-speed automatic in the ATS. “Transmission is a weak point,” declared Evans. Lago concurred, “The transmission, left in auto, is disappointing. Upshifts to the most fuel-efficient gear whenever possible.” Ayapana noted, “I went to Manual mode immediately.” As for the Cadillac’s 3.6-liter V-6, it’s perfectly adequate for canyon-carving, but in a straight line, the ATS is the slowest car here to 60 mph and tied with the 164-pound-heavier Lexus for last in the quarter. I bet the poor transmission has more to do with the car’s relative sloth than the engine.
The ATS4 is the only car in this test with magnetorheological shocks — same as Ferrari’s.
The Lexus, like the Cadillac, has a naturally aspirated engine. It’s a curious, if not a lazy choice on the part of Lexus. After all, the IS 350 and the ATS are the newest cars here, but they offer the oldest-school engines. My own notes read, “Weak-sauce engine.” Do the folks at Lexus (and Cadillac) not know that soon every BMW will have a turbocharged engine? Launching an all-new car with less power than the competition is a mistake. That said, the six-speed (RWD IS cars get eight-speeds) is quite good. One weird thing: Because the IS begins life as RWD, Lexus had to put a bump in the floor for the power takeoff unit right behind the accelerator pedal. It drove some of us crazy.
As for the Volvo, Kong described its turbocharged, sideways inline-six well: “Engine is strong and boost comes on hard and noticeably when you’re caning it.” But there is one huge, universal dislike about the S60, and that’s its crazy, instant throttle tip-in. Just touching the pedal sends the engine into near wide-open throttle, making it impossible to ever leave a stop smoothly. “This doesn’t feel sporty to me,” observed Evans. “It feels poorly tuned.” The Volvo also is the only car without paddle shifters.
None of these five cars will ever be mistaken for a Prius. Most feature EPA scores of under 20 mpg in city driving and below 30 on the highway. Only one, the BMW 335ix, is rated at exactly 20 mpg city, 30 mpg highway. What did we see? In a word, less. Our loop includes a nice mix of city, freeway, highway, and canyon roads, but the trouble is, we were guilty of driving a wee bit harder than absolutely necessary on those canyon roads. As such, every single car in the group returned an observed mileage score lower than its city rating. Oops.
Let’s start at the bottom. Hello, Cadillac! The ATS4 returned a worst-in-test average of 16.2 mpg. One reason: Within 100 feet of leaving the parking lot, all five of us switched to Manual and held the gears up around redline (7000 rpm) as often as we could. The Cadillac is more fun to drive than any of the others, and therefore we all rode it harder as a result. Note that as the only car burning regular, the Caddy is second cheapest to fuel over five years.
My favorite car to sit in, the IS 350 has character and personality — a first for Lexus.
There’s only a 0.8-mile-per-gallon difference separating the least efficient car here from the second-most efficient. To be fair, the Audi and the Volvo managed to tie for second with an average observed fuel economy of 17.0 mpg. The Lexus was next to last at 16.5 mpg. So, in reality, the Cadillac didn’t do so badly, and I still maintain it was driven harder than the others. The BMW, then, is leaps and bounds more miserly, as it returned an observed average of 19.2 mpg.
On the odd chance you don’t drive your sport sedan like you stole it, the EPA rates the Cadillac at 18/26 mpg, the Audi at 18/28 mpg, and the Volvo at 18/25 mpg. Lexus rates the IS 350 at 19/28 mpg for the IS 350 with the new eight-speed transmission, but the AWD model with the six-speed fares worse, at 18/26. As stated earlier, the best observed in test BMW also gets the highest EPA rating, 20/30 mpg.
In the same way I can’t find enough good things to say about the ATS’ handling, I can’t think of enough bad things to say about CUE. In fact, my New Year’s resolution is to never say another good thing about Cadillac’s haptic, yet crippled infotainment system. It is a travesty. Please kill it and execute an emergency refresh. Other problems with the inside of the ATS4 included wimpy, unsupportive seats and small, cramped, deal breaker rear seats.
On the other end of the spectrum is BMW’s iDrive. Turn the clock back a few years: No infotainment solution was as roundly and resolutely hated as the iDrive system that showed up in the Bangled 7 Series. These days? It’s the best in the business. The 335ix features the most comfortable seats of the test, though I hesitate to call them the best, because occupants do slide around during cornering. Ayapana said the BMW “has the best interior of the bunch” and called the seating position “perfect.”
Speaking of the Audi, the interior is very good, but what have you done for me lately? Familiarity breeds contempt, and while we far from hate the S4’s interior, we’ve seen it. Kong echoed my feelings: “Techie-looking interior that’s not particularly interesting to look at.” Ayapana logged, “Design and materials are not at the same level as the BMW or Lexus.” Evans liked the A4’s big trunk and proclaimed that, for sporty driving, the Audi had the best seats here.
Without small sport sedans, car writers wouldn’t exist.
Basically, the new Lexus IS is a cut-down GS, so the interior feels just as plush as big brother’s, only more snug. We all dug it — especially Lago. “The Lexus is my favorite car to sit in. And it has character and personality, a first for Lexus.” But Evans indicated, “I like the interior stylistically, but the ergonomics need a little work.” One point of disagreement was the floppy joystick controller. Ayapana found it intuitive to use, whereas I feel it’s been designed for elderly customers of other Lexus products.
The Volvo S60 R-Design is somehow a step backward compared with the interior of the regular-flavor S60, but at least they’re still comfortable. Said Evans, “Love, love, love the seats in this car. So comfortable and very supportive in turns.” The radio and navigation controls are a little crude, and, as Lago pointed out, “having the dominant control knob near the passenger side means you always have to reach over to use it.”
The Volvo S60 T6 is the safest car of the group. In fact, the S60 is in the safest 9 percent of all cars on sale in 2013, according to our partners at Informed for Life. The S60 is the only car in the test to get such a rating. It’s also the only car here that scored a Good rating for the small overlap frontal impact test, an admittedly severe new test. The S60 is both a NHTSA and IIHS top safety pick.
The BMW is the only other car that was tested by both organizations. It fares basically as well as the Volvo (one 4 for frontal impact), with the exception of the small overlap test, where it received an M for marginal. The IIHS gives out G for good, A for acceptable, the M, and P for poor. Regardless, the 335ix is still a top safety pick for both organizations, with the caveat that 88 percent of all cars tested in 2013 received such a rating from the IIHS.
The Cadillac and the Audi received identical scores from NHTSA: all 5s. Neither car has been tested by the IIHS in 2013. However, the IIHS did test a 2013 Audi A4. That car received the highest rating in every test save for the small offset test, where it received a P. However, the A4 has a four-cylinder underhood, instead of the S4’s longitudinal V-6, so it’s not exactly apples to apples.
The Lexus is a different story, as the IS is so new that neither organization has tested it. We asked for Lexus’ official story and were told, “The IS was designed to meet or exceed the industry’s highest safety standards.” Since every carmaker in the world would say exactly that, we looked at the data for the GS, which again is on a similar platform. The IIHS gives the 2013 GS all G ratings, though it did not perform a small offset crash. The NHTSA hasn’t tested it yet.
German cars are expensive. You know this, I know this, dogs know this. For people who enjoy showing off just how successful they are, high-dollar price tags are part of the appeal. Also remember these are luxury cars, and luxury items by definition cost more than non-luxury goods. Meaning that value, in this case, is in the eye of the lease holder.
<img src="http://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/42/2013/07/2013-BMW-335i-xDrive-front-three-quarter-turn2.jpg" alt="WINNER!
While expensive to buy and to own, the BMW 335i xDrive is the car that ticked the most boxes in this Big Test. Go easy on the options, and your 3 Series can be had for significantly less than the car we evaluated.” class=”wp-image-2103942″ />
That said, the BMW 335ix showed up with a nosebleed-high sticker price of $61,860. At first, we laughed, then we rolled our eyes, and then we just referred to it as the $62,000
3 Series. The 335ix has a base price of $46,075, meaning that our Alpine White test car had $15,785 worth of options. We would have been satisfied with only $6550 worth of extras. For instance, do you really need the $3040 yellow brake calipers?
The iDrive in the Bangled 7 Series was roundly hated. Today, it’s the best in
The Audi was right with the BMW in terms of high entry fees. The S4’s base price is $49,895, and $8725 worth of options bumps the as tested price up to $58,620. Expensive, sure, but keep in mind both Germans are big, roomy, luxurious four-door sedans that hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. When performance is factored in, the two Germans don’t seem too pricey. That said, I think we could all live long, happy lives without $500 Carbon Atlas Inlays.
The other cars are squarer deals, though of course with less performance. Remember, since the dawn of the car salesman, more go equals more of your hard-earned dollars. The Caddy has a base price of $44,090 with $8575 worth of options for a total of $52,665; the Volvo starts life at $44,995 with $3400 worth of extras for a total of $48,195; and the Lexus begins at $42,595 with $6900 worth of extra kit and a grand total of $49,495.
All things not being exactly equal, there wasn’t a single judge on the jury who felt any of the competitors wasn’t worth the money. Sure, each car had a superfluous option or two, but we all believed they reflect the reality of a spendy segment.
Cost of Ownership
IntelliChoice provides a metric called Total Cost of Ownership, which tallies the total depreciation, routine maintenance, fuel, and other charges anticipated over five years of driving. This bottom line provides a better assessment of value than the purchase price. Note that the second-least-expensive Lexus to buy is most affordable, thanks to its amazingly low depreciation. While the second-priciest Audi ends up costing the most to own, its highest-in-test maintenance, repair, and insurance costs overshadow its second-best depreciation percentage.
The second-least-expensive-to-own Volvo deserves extra credit for its lowest anticipated maintenance, repair, and insurance costs. Cadillac suffers the greatest depreciation as a percentage of the purchase price, which ties into brand perception, meaning Cadillac still has a mountain to climb in that arena.
This was a remarkably difficult decision to make, as all the contenders are good cars. Somehow, and I’m not totally sure how, the Volvo sank like a rock to the bottom. Is it bad? Not at all, but aside from safety it stood out in no single area.
The Cadillac outshone everyone else in one single category: Ride and handling. In terms of smiles produced and fun to drive, no other car was even close. But as right as Cadillac got the ATS’ chassis, it dropped the ball elsewhere, especially in CUE.
The Audi, while faster than it needs to be, is starting to feel a bit long in the tooth. We’ve seen the interior; we’re getting bored with the styling; and we’re totally indifferent at this point to its numb steering and FWD bias. As Angus MacKenzie often states, RWD is the proper way to build a car.
Despite how bone-deep ugly it is on the outside, the little Lexus surprised us all. From its handsome and comfortable interior to its better-than-expected handling to its value and low cost of ownership, the IS 350 was full of surprises. All that said, bring on the F Sport.
This leaves the BMW and its combination of luxury, comfort, and curb appeal. There’s a reason every other car in the segment is measured against the 3 Series. Even with AWD, it remains the benchmark.
5th Place: Volvo S60
While safe and competent, the Volvo failed to get anyone’s pulse racing. The competition remains extremely strong and a refresh is coming soon.
4th Place: Cadillac ATS
Without question, the best driving car here, but last or near last in every other category. Cadillac has a great starting point, but it needs to finish the job.
3rd Place: Lexus IS 350
A solid value and a welcome refresh. We would have loved to have see an F-Sport with AWD, and though we asked for it, Lexus didn’t have one available. Also, the front of this car is too homely for it to place any higher.
2nd Place: Audi S4
Muscular, brutish, and confidence-inspiring, the S4 is let down by its age and a slightly underwhelming driving experience. Still, what an impressive athlete.
1st Place: BMW 335i xdrive
Featuring the best combination of everything, the latest 3 Series just doesn’t have any glaring flaws. It’s still the master of the segment it created.
The Cadillac’s aluminum-intensive chassis makes it the lightest car in the test.
Lexus IS 350
Because it’s AWD, the IS 350 gets a six-speed automatic instead of an eight-speed.
The seven-speed S Tronic transmission is fabulous, and the only dual-clutch here.
The Volvo is the only contender that gets a good rating for the small offset crash test.
BMW 335i xDrive
It came optioned with $3040 yellow performance calipers we’re still snickering about.
|Audi S4||BMW 335i xDrive||Cadillac ATS4 3.6||Lexus IS 350 AWD||Volvo S60 T6 R-Design AWD|
|Avg State Fees||$659||$663||$596||$605||$567|
|Depreciation||$28,753 (48%)||$33,662 (54%)||$31,525 (59%)||$20,837 (40%)||$27,871 (58%)|
|5-Year Cost of Ownership||$64,652||$63,598||$61,585||$53,338||$55,105|
|Intellichoice Target Purchase Price||$59,496||$62,723||$53,801||$52,374||$48,262|
|PURCHASE PRICE: Target purchase price includes destination and average applicable state taxes applied to a transaction price between invoice and retail, based on applicable incentives.|
|2013 Audi S4||2013 BMW 335i xDrive||2013 Cadillac ATS4 3.6|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, AWD||Front engine, AWD||Front engine, AWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Supercharged 90-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads||Turbocharged I-6, aluminum block/head||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||182.8 cu in/2995 cc||181.8 cu in/2979 cc||217.5 cu in/3564 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||333 hp @ 5500 rpm||320 hp @ 5800 rpm||321 hp @ 6800 rpm*|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||325 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm||332 lb-ft @ 1200 rpm||275 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm*|
|REDLINE||7000 rpm||7000 rpm||7000 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.0 lb/hp||11.7 lb/hp||11.5 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||7-speed twin-cl auto||8-speed automatic||6-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F;R||13.6-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS||13.4-in vented, grooved disc; 13.0-in vented, grooved disc, ABS||12.6-in vented disc; 12.4-in vented disc, ABS|
|WHEELS, F;R||8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 18-in, forged aluminum|
|TIRES, F;R|| 255/35R19 96Y
Continental ContiSportContact 3
| 225/45R18 91Y
Bridgestone Potenza S001
| 225/40R18 92V
Michelin Primacy MXM4 ZP
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.6/37.5 in||40.3/37.7 in||38.6/36.8 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||41.3/35.2 in||42.0/35.1 in||42.5/33.5 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||55.5/54.3 in||55.1/55.1 in||55.2/53.9 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||12.4 cu ft||11.0 cu ft||10.4 cu ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3982 lb||3731 lb||3682 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||56/44%||53/47%||53/47%|
|TURNING CIRCLE||37.7 ft||38.7 ft||38.1 ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||1.4 sec||1.5 sec||2.0 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||2.3||2.3||2.8|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.94 g (avg)||0.87 g (avg)||0.88 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||24.9 sec @ 0.78 g (avg)||25.6 sec @ 0.75 g (avg)||25.8 sec @ 0.72 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1600 rpm||1700 rpm||1750 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$58,620||$61,860||$52,665|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee||Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 mi||4 yrs/50,000 mi||4 yrs/50,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 mi||4 yrs/50,000mi||6 yrs/70,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||4 yrs/unlimited||4 yrs/unlimited||6 yrs/70,000 mi|
|FUEL CAPACITY||16.1 gal||15.8 gal||16.0 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||18/28 mpg||20/30 mpg||18/26 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||187/120 kW-hrs/100 mi||169/112 kW-hrs/100 mi||187/130 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.90 lb/mi||0.82 lb/mi||0.93 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||17.0 mpg||19.2 mpg||16.2 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium||Unleaded regular|
|2014 Lexus IS 350 AWD||2013 Volvo S60 T6 AWD R-Design|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, AWD||Front engine, AWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads||Turbocharged I-6, aluminum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||210.9 cu in/3456 cc||180.2 cu in/2953 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||306 hp @ 6400 rpm||325 hp @ 5400 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||277 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm||354 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm|
|REDLINE||6600 rpm||6500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.6 lb/hp||11.8 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||6-speed automatic||6-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F;R||13.2-in vented disc; 12.2-in vented disc, ABS||13.2-in vented disc; 11.9-in vented disc, ABS|
|WHEELS, F;R||8.0 x 18-in; 8.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 18-in,cast aluminum|
|TIRES, F;R|| 225/40R18 88Y; 255/35R18 90Y
Bridgestone Turanza ER 33
| 235/40R18 95W
Continental ContiSportContact 3
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.2/36.9 in||37.6/37.4 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||44.8/32.2 in||41.9/33.5 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||55.9/53.4 in||57.0/55.2 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||13.8 cu ft||12.0 cu ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3846 lb||3828 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||54/46%||62/38%|
|TURNING CIRCLE||35.4 ft||39.0 ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||1.9 sec||1.9 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||2.8||2.6|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.87 g (avg)||0.90 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||26.0 sec @ 0.72 g (avg)||25.6 sec @ 0.74 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1900 rpm||1800 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$49,495||$48,165|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 mi||4 yrs/50,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||6 yrs/70,000 mi||4 yrs/50,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||4 yrs/unlimited||4 yrs/unlimited|
|FUEL CAPACITY||17.4 gal||17.8 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||19/26 mpg||18/25 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||177/130 kW-hrs/100 mi||187/135 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.90 lb/mi||0.94 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||16.5 mpg||17.0 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium|