{{ 'Go back' | translate}}
Njus logo

Motor news | Njus Canada

2020 Kia Telluride SX First Test: Big, Boxy, and Actually Cool

Motor Motor Trend Canada

For years, if you wanted a Kia that wasn’t a minivan and had room for seven, your only choice was the three-row version of the Sorento crossover.The problem was, even after Kia redesigned the Sorento for 2016, the third row wasn’t the kind of place
'For years, if you wanted a Kia that wasn’t a minivan and had room for seven, your only choice was the three-row version of the Sorento crossover.The problem was, even after Kia redesigned the Sorento for 2016, the third row wasn’t the kind of place you’d want to put a person with legs.For families who like the idea of being able to carry two extra passengers in a pinch, that was fine.But for anyone who needed to regularly use that third row, the Sorento was a hard sell.That’s where the all-new 2020 Kia Telluride comes in.Even though it’s still technically a midsize crossover, the Telluride is the largest vehicle Kia has ever built.Compared with the current Sorento, it has about a 5-inch-longer wheelbase and is nearly 8 inches longer overall.That means the Telluride is also a few inches bigger than the Honda Pilot and even the new Toyota Highlander . It is, however, a bit shorter than the new Ford Explorer . And although the boxy styling and overall size might suggest otherwise, there’s no truck frame underneath the Telluride’s sheetmetal.Instead, the Telluride is built on a unibody platform shared with the Hyundai Palisade.There’s a 3.8-liter V-6 making 291 horsepower and 262 lb-ft of torque under the hood, and shifting is handled by an eight-speed automatic. --> If you want an entry-level, front-wheel-drive Telluride, it will cost you $32,735 USD.The version we brought in for testing, though, was a top-trim SX version with optional all-wheel drive and the Prestige package, which came in at $47,255 USD.That’s a lot of money, but keep in mind that a top-trim Honda Pilot costs $49,065 USD.If you add fancy wheels, that total rises to $51,061 USD.And it’s not like you’ll save much money by switching to a minivan, either.An all-wheel-drive Toyota Sienna Limited Premium will run you $50,285 USD, and a loaded Chrysler Pacifica costs even more.Basically, if you want all the bells and whistles, be prepared for modern family transportation to be pricey.And boy, did our Telluride SX come with a lot of bells and whistles.In addition to some more basic features, you get LED headlights, 20-inch black alloy wheels, dual sunroofs, a heated steering wheel, Nappa leather upholstery, heated and ventilated second-row seats, rain-sensing wipers, a head-up display, a surround-view camera system, adaptive cruise control with steering assist, a 10.3-inch touchscreen infotainment system with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and six USB ports.None of these features is truly groundbreaking, but someone coming from an older car will probably be shocked by all they get.Once we got the Telluride to the test track, we recorded a 0–60 time of 7.2 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 15.4 seconds at 92.9 mph (149.5 km/h). We have yet to test the new Highlander or Explorer, but those times put the Telluride well ahead of the Volkswagen Atlas SEL Premium and a good bit behind the last Honda Pilot Elite we tested.The Telluride did edge out the Pilot in our braking test, stopping from 60 mph in 118 feet.In our handling tests, the Telluride averaged 0.80 g around our skidpad and ran the figure eight in 27.3 seconds at 0.63 g.That’s almost identical to the Pilot’s performance, though the Telluride’s figure-eight time was a tick quicker.But despite the Telluride’s commendable handling (for a true three-row midsize crossover), there’s still no hiding its weight in the corners. “It feels really big and very soft,” testing director Kim Reynolds said. “It’s dominated by understeer and lots of body motions.” The biggest issue he had with the Telluride, though, was the unpredictable stability control. “Turn it off, and it’s sometimes off (surprisingly off) but other times reawakens with draconian intrusion.I did a few laps with it off, then all of a sudden, it was on again while turning to the right.” Odds are, most owners will never touch the stability control button.Nor will they miss the Stinger’s twin-turbo V-6 that we would have loved to see Kia find a way to offer on the Telluride.In daily driving situations, the engine felt plenty powerful and sounded surprisingly sporty.And although the Telluride is a competent handler, buyers will probably appreciate the exceptionally quiet cabin, well-damped ride, and minimal wind noise even more.The Telluride should also keep rear passengers happy.The seven-seat version we tested did a solid minivan impression, offering easy access to the third row and enough room for two full-size adults to sit behind full-size adults in the second row sitting behind full-size adults in the front.There are also plenty of storage compartments and two USB ports per row.Just don’t expect minivan levels of cargo space.With the third row up, there’s only room for two carry-on suitcases, so road trips might require adding a cargo carrier to the roof.Alternatively, a tow hitch and a self-leveling suspension are available as part of a $795 USD towing package.Kia also appears to have made an intentional decision to prioritize durability over luxury in the Telluride.Everything you touch feels solid and high quality, but there’s a lot of hard plastic in the cabin, especially in the third row.And even though it looks real at first, the “open-pore wood” trim is fake, too.If you were hoping for a luxury experience at a discount, that’s going to be disappointing.On the other hand, if you plan to put the Telluride to work as a family hauler, it means you’ll probably be able to keep the cabin in good condition for longer.Perhaps the biggest advantage the Kia Telluride has is that it looks cool.It’s no old-school body-on-frame SUV with a V-8, but still.The cool factor is something most of its competition doesn’t have, and it’s the kind of edge that will likely make the Telluride a huge hit for Kia.Is that logical?Nope.But if everyone was picking family haulers logically, the roads would still be full of minivans. 2020 Kia Telluride SX V6 AWD BASE PRICE $44,535 PRICE AS TESTED $47,255 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV ENGINE 3.8L/291-hp/262-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,510 lb (55/45%) WHEELBASE 114.2 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 196.9 x 78.3 x 68.9 in 0-60 MPH 7.2 sec QUARTER MILE 15.4 sec @ 92.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 118 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.80 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.3 sec @ 0.63 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 19/24/21 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 177/140 kW-hr/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.93 lb/mile . The post 2020 Kia Telluride SX First Test: Big, Boxy, and Actually Cool appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'

Put to the Test: 2019 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison V-6

Motor Motor Trend Canada

If you’re most Americans, the only place you’ve ever seen an American bison is in a picture of the West or on a menu.
'If you’re most Americans, the only place you’ve ever seen an American bison is in a picture of the West or on a menu.These days, the vast majority are on private ranches and raised for food, but for most of the last 400,000 years prior to Manifest Destiny, bison could be found all over the U.S., Canada, and northern Mexico.It’s a proud heritage, one perfectly suited to the 2019 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison. --> Like most bovines, Bison spend a lot of time standing around or meandering about, but they can cover ground when they want to.They’ve been found at altitudes up to 10,000 feet and can run at up to 40 mph (64 km/h) and jump 6 feet high when properly motivated.The ZR2 Bison can go anywhere it pleases and do sick jumps, too, though it’s considerably more reliable than its notoriously temperamental namesake.The Bison treatment requires a fresh ZR2 to make a trip over to American Expedition Vehicles for extra underbody armor, tubular steel bumpers, and cool new wheels (plus a snorkel, if you option it). Boron steel plating isn’t light, adding 144 pounds (65 kg) compared with a 2018 Colorado ZR2 , per our scales.Similarly equipped with the four-door Crew Cab and V-6 engine, the slightly heavier ZR2 Bison is predictably slightly slower than the standard ZR2.The good news is, 144 pounds (65 kg) doesn’t make much difference on a truck that weighs 4,904 pounds (2224 kg), so the change in performance is basically within the margin of error.For example, the ZR2 Bison needs 7.2 seconds to get to 60 mph, a tenth slower than the standard ZR2.Likewise, it’s a tenth of a second and 2.1 mph (3.4 km/h) behind in the quarter mile at 15.6 seconds at 87.9 mph (141.5 km/h). Like a charging bison, it carries its weight well.So well, in fact, the ZR2 Bison pulled slightly higher average g on the skidpad at an average of 0.72 g compared with 0.70 g for the regular ZR2.Same on our figure-eight test: 28.2 seconds at 0.59 average g for the ZR2 Bison and 29.1 seconds at 0.58 average g for the ZR2.The ZR2 Bison even stopped 2 feet shorter from 60 mph in just 133.With both trucks wearing the same 265/65/R17 Goodyear Wrangler DuraTracs, our best guesses to explain these results include the ZR2 Bison’s tires being a bit newer and its transmission programming being a bit fresher.Previously, we’ve found V-6 Colorados of all trims to be soggy on the bottom end and suffering from transmission programming that always seeks out the highest gear.The ZR2 Bison, though, has been cured of that gearbox ill.Now, the GM-built eight-speed does a much better job of keeping the engine in the meat of its powerband and the improvement in drivability, on-road and off, is palpable.That’s particularly great news, because your truck is bound to spend far more time on the road getting to and from the trailhead than it is in the dirt.Out on the open road, you’ll appreciate the newfound responsiveness from the powertrain, and you won’t be upset about it in the dirt, either.Think back to our epic Trans-Labrador Highway road trip and comparison test from two years ago (or better yet, go give it another read), and you’ll recall that the lousy transmission kept the standard Colorado ZR2 out of first place.No longer.With the one thing you used to have to worry about now taken care of, the ZR2 Bison feels unstoppable.Its 8.9 inches of ground clearance isn’t record-setting, but with excellent approach, breakover, and departure angles, it’ll get you where you want to go.Throw in the peace of mind granted by skidplates, rock sliders, bumper reinforcements, and locking front and rear differentials, and you’ll never worry whether the ZR2 Bison will get you through.To make sure, we took it for a 160-mile (257-km) off-road jaunt in the Mojave Desert, which you’ll read about in an upcoming comparison test.Up and down rocky hills, through sandy riverbeds, and over miles and miles of dirt two-track later, we never even had to use the differential locks.Heck, we only used four low twice out of an abundance of caution.American expedition vehicle, indeed. 2019 Chevrolet Colorado V6 ZR2 AEV Bison BASE PRICE $49,745 PRICE AS TESTED $49,745 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD, 5-pass, 4-door truck ENGINE 3.6L/308-hp/275-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,904 lb (58/42%) WHEELBASE 128.5 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 212.4 x 76.7 x 72.2 in 0-60 MPH 7.2 sec QUARTER MILE 15.6 sec @ 87.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 133 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.72 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.2 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 16/18/17 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 211/187 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.15 lb/mile . The post Put to the Test: 2019 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 Bison V-6 appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'

A Faster Ford GT is on the Way

Motor Motor Trend Canada

A more track-focused Ford GT is coming, according to an image shared on Instagram.Posted by Multimatic, the teaser shows only a shadowy silhouette of the car, but we can make out a few key details that let us know what we’re looking at.First are the
'A more track-focused Ford GT is coming, according to an image shared on Instagram . Posted by Multimatic, the teaser shows only a shadowy silhouette of the car, but we can make out a few key details that let us know what we’re looking at.First are the Ford GT’s signature C-shaped LED accent lights.Second, and what makes clear this variant will improve the car’s capability, is the massive rear wing that can be seen hovering above the rear end.It looks to span nearly the entire width of the body, with an aggressive angle of attack that will keep the car firmly planted.A central roof-mounted scoop can be discerned too, likely providing more airflow to boost power from the 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6. --> The hashtags give clues as to when we can expect to see the car.FOS is an abbreviation for Festival of Speed, the annual motorsports gathering at the Goodwood estate in England, from July 4-7.In 2017, a standard Ford GT completed the event’s renowned hillclimb in 54.54 seconds—surely this new version will only improve on that.Multimatic is the Canadian automotive supplier contracted by Ford to assemble the GT.The firm is an expert in carbon fiber manufacturing, and its spool-valve suspension dampers are fitted to the GT.Multimatic is also known for its work on the Aston Martin Vulcan and Red Bull Formula 1 cars.In our First Drive of the Ford GT , we praised the car’s violent acceleration, superb high-speed stability, and “calm, concise, constant dialogue with the chassis through your fingers and toes and the seat of your pants.” While we experienced those traits lapping Big Willow  during our First Test, the numbers the GT posted had us wondering if its $453,750 USD starting price is worth it.After all, with a lap time of 1:23.69, it’s over 2.5 seconds behind the $100,000 USD cheaper Porsche 911 GT2 RS Weissach and under 1.5 seconds ahead of the about-$100,000 USD Chevrolet Corvette Z06.We hope this aero-optimized GT will silence our critiques and solidify its place as a track weapon.Expect to learn more about this new aero-optimized Ford GT as the 2019 Goodwood Festival of Speed approaches. . The post A Faster Ford GT is on the Way appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'

B.C.'s reduced electric vehicle subsidy should last rest of this year

Motor Vancouver Sun

Province dialling back its electric vehicle rebate program from $5,000 to $3,000 per vehicle to try and preserve funding for the rest of 2019
'VICTORIA — The B.C. government couldn't find the money in its budget to replenish a $5,000 electric vehicle rebate program, and chose instead to reduce the incentive so that the funding can last out the year, says the energy minister. Read More'

Tested: Is the Genesis G70 Still a Driver’s Car With the 2.0T Engine?

Motor Motor Trend Canada

Here’s a story you’ve heard before: “[Upstart manufacturer] creates sports sedan to take on the BMW 3 Series.” It’s a tale as old as the 3 Series itself, with new chapters added every few years as ambitious brands take their turn at rivaling the
'Here’s a story you’ve heard before: “[Upstart manufacturer] creates sports sedan to take on the BMW 3 Series .” It’s a tale as old as the 3 Series itself, with new chapters added every few years as ambitious brands take their turn at rivaling the German standard-setter.With the Genesis G70, 2019 marked the shortest time from brand establishment to Car of the Year win.The Genesis G70 win is especially impressive considering it’s the three-year-old brand’s first effort in the segment.Recently, we spent time in the base-engine G70 2.0T and wondered: Would the G70’s prowess as a driver’s car still shine through?And, crucially, could it hold its position against the 3 Series?Our G70 2.0T tester’s 2.0-liter turbo-four produces 252 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque, compared to 365 hp and 376 lb-ft from the 3.3T model’s 3.3-liter twin-turbo V-6.Acceleration drops accordingly; its 0–60 time of 6.2 seconds is a second and a half behind the six-cylinder version of our Car of the Year champ.It’s also slower than all-wheel-drive Audi A4s we’ve tested; those cars hit 60 in 5.0–5.4 seconds despite having identical displacement and horsepower.The four-cylinder G70 completed the quarter-mile sprint in 14.7 seconds at 93.9 mph (151.1 km/h), falling behind the Mercedes C 300’s 14.1 seconds at 99.9 mph (160.8 km/h). Supposedly the Genesis has launch control, but road test editor Chris Walton found it didn’t help—enabling it produced “a little chirp from the tires, then the engine bogs a bit.Trying various rpm brake releases produced nearly identical runs.” --> Outside of a dragstrip, however, the 2.0T model doesn’t leave the driver wanting for acceleration.Clearly it’s turbocharged; there’s a bit of lag as power arrives a moment after the driver’s input.Keep it on boost, though, and it rushes toward its 6,200-rpm horsepower peak.Genesis attempts to amplify the experience by playing an artificial engine note inside the cabin, but its organic delivery had us wondering what effect it had.In casual driving, the Genesis-designed eight-speed automatic transmission shifts with just enough feeling to let the driver know something’s happening.Hit the upshift paddle under generous throttle, and it responds with a satisfying kick into the next gear.However, the downshift paddle wasn’t so reactive.In real-world and track testing, multiple taps often wouldn’t engage a lower gear while braking.Annoyingly, there’s no manual mode—the G70 returns to automatic shifting if you hold a gear too long, or whenever you come to a stop.For permanent manual mode, Genesis notably offers the G70 2.0T with a six-speed stick.The company knew the take rate for the manual would be low, and to date it’s only sold a handful of cars so equipped.Still, the automaker did it to capture the attention of enthusiasts, who would hopefully recognize the newcomer brand keeps their interests in mind.The 2.0T drivetrain didn’t wow us like the 3.3T did, but the smaller engine cuts 119 pounds (54 kg) of mass over the front axle, yielding an improved 51/49 percent front/rear weight distribution.That seemed to parlay the balance we praised in our Car of the Year writeup.However, in figure-eight handling testing, testing director Kim Reynolds found where the G70 might concede to the 3 Series.Despite the Genesis weighing only 13 pounds (6 g) more, its steering feels heavier and less natural than the BMW ’s: “A bit wonky and more artificial, but I don’t want to be too critical—it’s fun,” he wrote.That weighty steering complements the excellent chassis tuning, an element that’s continuously evident in the G70’s drive.The taut suspension and stiff body communicate what the tires are passing over, but the ride is supple, not harsh or crashy.We might not call it nimble, but it’s always poised.This isn’t a car you toss around, rather one in which you plot a flow down the road—equally enjoyable in highway cruising and backroad exploration.This is where the G70 earns its sport sedan credentials.The overall feeling it provides is one of connection, refinement, and solidity.Those adjectives describe the interior, too.It looks and feels high quality, with hardly a surface that could be described as cheap.Our car’s lovely black-over-brown interior was a hit among testers and passengers.Quilted leather seats have bolstering that strikes harmony between sport and luxury.The door panel, center console lid, and transmission tunnel are comfortably padded where the driver might rest their extremities.Brightwork on trim, knobs, and buttons isn’t genuine metal but—like everything in the cabin—presents a substantial feel.Genesis’ decision to forgo a dial or touchpad for infotainment control is appreciated.A fixed 8.0-inch screen centrally mounted on the dashboard responds quickly to touch inputs.Graphics aren’t among today’s best, but integration with Apple CarPlay or Android Auto is fairly seamless.The screen’s positioning may be suboptimal for shorter drivers, but its location and function seems natural and sensible.Sensible, too, is how the instrument cluster display between the gauges works; toggles on the steering wheel let the driver access key functions on the move.All climate tasks can be controlled by physical dials and buttons on the center console.A few quirks and confusions indicate this is a first-effort car.The navigation system SD card, which will almost never be accessed, is smack in the center of the dashboard, displacing more useful buttons next to it.Several times on our tester, switching drive modes while using Apple CarPlay garbled our music, requiring an on-off of the audio to fix.The head-up display spontaneously disappeared between drives.We eventually found it, positioned in a way that couldn’t be safely viewed while driving.It wouldn’t adjust back into sight, as if the projector shifted entirely.Adaptive cruise control cut out at the same time, and no number of vehicle restarts got it going again.Although Genesis is a subbrand of Hyundai , little about the G70 indicates that it shares parts with a non-luxury brand.Yes, the lower door cards are plastic, and the infotainment is what you’d find in any Hyundai.But if Genesis saved development dollars there and spent more on improving the way the car drives, it’s a worthwhile trade-off.At $44,895 USD, our fully loaded G70 2.0T Dynamic rings up many thousands of dollars less than similarly equipped competitors.We summed up our 2019 Car of the Year report by praising Genesis for “accomplishing the near impossible: It built a better 3 Series.” Again, in a recent comparison , the G70 2.0T beat the 330i (but was bested by the Tesla Model 3), our testers saying the Korean car “represents the pinnacle of a segment.” To answer our earlier questions, yes, the G70 is still excellent even with the smaller engine.And yes, it still beats the 3 Series. 2019 Genesis G70 2.0T BASE PRICE $35,895 PRICE AS TESTED $44,895 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan ENGINE 2.0L/252-hp/260-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,659 lb (51/49%) WHEELBASE 111.6 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 184.5 x 72.8 x 55.1 in 0-60 MPH 6.2 sec QUARTER MILE 14.7 sec @ 93.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 106 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.94 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 25.2 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 22/30/25 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 153/112 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.78 lb/mile . The post Tested: Is the Genesis G70 Still a Driver’s Car With the 2.0T Engine? appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'

TESTED: The Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor is Quicker Than You Think

Motor Motor Trend Canada

All-wheel drive was once seen as dead weight in a sports car, but today we recognize it as a necessary traction enhancement on the dragstrip, especially for heavier cars.Nothing demonstrates that new reality like a Tesla.
'All-wheel drive was once seen as dead weight in a sports car, but today we recognize it as a necessary traction enhancement on the dragstrip, especially for heavier cars.Nothing demonstrates that new reality like a Tesla . This 4,062-pound (1,842-kg) Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor hit 60 mph in just 4.0 seconds and passed the quarter-mile finish line in 12.5 seconds at 113.1 mph (182 km/h), all with only 346 hp and 376 lb-ft of torque.The context really drives it home.The highest-performing Model 3s we’ve tested have been, naturally, Dual Motor Performance models with 450 horsepower and 471 lb-ft.The quickest of them hit 60 mph in 3.1 seconds and passed the quarter-mile finish line in 11.7 seconds at 115.1 mph (185.2), almost a second better than the regular car.The slowest, if it can be called that, was a Model 3 Long Range rear-drive car, which hit 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and the quarter in 13.4 seconds at 104.9 mph (168.8 km/h). Read the MotorTrend comparison of the Model 3 against the BMW 330i and Genesis G70 here . --> The acceleration data alone beautifully demonstrates the advantage of all-wheel traction: eight-tenths of a second gained getting up to freeway speeds and nine-tenths gained in the quarter, just by powering the front wheels.That puts the standard Long Range Dual Motor car just 0.9 second behind the Performance model to 60 mph and 0.8 behind at the quarter, traveling only 2 mph (3.2 km/h) slower.It’s in good company, too, ahead of an Audi S4 , dead even with a BMW M6 Gran Coupe, and just behind an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio and Cadillac CTS -V.Also hanging out right around the 4-second mark: the Camaro SS, the Mustang GT, and the Dodge Hellcat twins.The Tesla falls behind in the quarter, but then again, it has less than 350 hp.Let’s not forget, either, that the Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor Performance is the fourth-quickest sedan we’ve ever tested behind the Model S P100D Ludicrous (2.3 seconds to 60 mph), Porsche Panamera (2.8), BMW M5 , and Mercedes -AMG E 63 S (tied at 3.0), each one of which is all-wheel drive.Put enough power and grip in the equation, and anything can go fast, but the plain-Jane Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor can corner, too.Of course, it would corner a lot better if it had the Performance model’s tires, but being the everyday car, it wore Continental all-season tires.As such, it again falls neatly between the rear-drive Model 3 Long Range and the all-wheel-drive Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor Performance.At the skidpad, it showed a pretty good 0.90 g average and put up a figure-eight lap time of 24.9 seconds at 0.78 average g.That’s comfortably ahead of the rear-drive car (0.87 g average and 25.7 seconds at 0.74 average g) and not all that far behind the Performance model (0.95 g average and 24.2 seconds at 0.83 average g). On the performance sedan front, however, it’s more 5 Series than M5 (though it’s sized more like an M3). In fact, it’s about dead even with an M550i and actually slightly behind a Hellcat.You wouldn’t know it behind the wheel, though.Everyone’s heard by now that batteries under the car mean a low center of gravity and a feeling of being planted on the road, but Tesla has another trick up its sleeve that doesn’t get nearly as much attention: the windshield.Not having much to cover up front, the hood and therefore the cowl height (base of the windshield) are very low.Love or hate the Model 3’s ultra-minimalist dashboard, the design keeps everything low and out of your sightlines.With such a massive windshield in front of you and the ability to see more of the pavement ahead that would otherwise be blocked by the hood and instrument cluster, Tesla has greatly enhanced the perception of speed.Like sitting in the first car of a roller coaster, you have fewer reference points around you and a better view of the world coming at you.Rather than sitting in a midsize sedan, the view out is more akin to sitting in a McLaren even if the seating position isn’t.Combine this with a low center of gravity and linear, zero-lag acceleration, and the Model 3 feels faster than it is every time you punch the accelerator or turn the steering wheel.And again, it isn’t slow.The steering wheel, as with most electrically assisted systems, doesn’t talk much, but it’s very precise.Although it doesn’t put up the numbers of other performance sedans, the quick steering, minimal body roll, and the always-ready power combine to make the car particularly fun to drive for a non-performance model.It sails through curves with an easy confidence and eager responses that make you want to try keeping up with a sports car even if you don’t have the tires for it.It’s a similar case with the brakes.Stopping from 60 mph in 113 feet is fine but hardly spectacular.It’s a few feet better than the rear-drive car thanks to an increased regenerative braking effect from the front motor. (Rear motors applying too much regenerative braking can destabilize the car, so they can’t regenerate to their full potential.) The Performance model’s big brakes and sticky tires haul it down in a far more impressive 99 feet.Numbers-wise, again, the non-Performance all-wheel-drive car comes in at Hellcat performance levels.In practice, Tesla remains the benchmark in blending regenerative and mechanical braking in a way that’s not only seamless but also feels as good as a better than average pure mechanical system.Despite its capabilities, our test car wasn’t without flaws.The most noticeable, during this unusually cool spring, was the failure of the heater to produce heat.According to Tesla, the car self-diagnosed a bad connection in the heater and deactivated it until a technician could correct the issue.A message should have been displayed to the driver but for unknown reasons was not.The second was inconsistent behavior from the Autosteer lane-keeping feature in the Autopilot advanced cruise control system.On freeways, Autosteer insisted on riding the left-hand side of the lane, to the point of driving on the Botts’ dots, rather than centering the car in the lane like it’s supposed to.It knew what it was doing, too, at least according to the display screen, which showed the car on the left lane line.On multi-lane boulevards, though, it kept the car right in the middle of the lane.Per Tesla, the car was in the process of recalibrating its Autopilot and Autosteer systems at the time, which in our case lasted several days but was finished by the time the car was returned, preventing the automaker from recreating the issue.A customer in this scenario would be able to have the car remotely recalibrated over the air with a call to Tesla.When a plain ol’ Model 3 with all-wheel drive and a big battery can mix it up with cars made by special divisions, hang with cars with up to twice the horsepower in a straight line and around a corner, yet still come in tens of thousands of dollars less, it’s enough to make you wonder what even counts as a “performance” model anymore.The only obvious answer is an even higher-performance model that mixes it up with supercars. 2018 Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor Long Range BASE PRICE $51,400* PRICE AS TESTED $54,100* VEHICLE LAYOUT Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan MOTORS 2 x 3-phase internal permanent-magnet electric motor, 346 hp, 376 lb-ft (front + rear comb) TRANSMISSION 1-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,062 lb (51/49%) WHEELBASE 113.2 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 184.8 x 72.8 x 56.8 in 0-60 MPH 4.0 sec QUARTER MILE 12.5 sec @ 113.1 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 113 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.90 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.9 sec @ 0.78 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 120/112/116 mpg-e ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 28/30 kW-hr/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.00 lb/mile (at vehicle) *Before applicable tax credits   . The post TESTED: The Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor is Quicker Than You Think appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'

Five Cars, Three Lap Records, Go!

Motor Motor Trend Canada

None of it was planned.But somehow, on a Tuesday in late April on the big track at Willow Springs International Raceway, we found ourselves in possession of five vehicles capable of breaking three different lap records.
'None of it was planned.But somehow, on a Tuesday in late April on the big track at Willow Springs International Raceway, we found ourselves in possession of five vehicles capable of breaking three different lap records.The Lamborghini Aventador SVJ would Challenge the Porsche GT2 RS for the overall production car lap record; both the Lambo Urus and Porsche Cayenne Turbo could vie for the BMW X6 M’s SUV lap record; and the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio and Jaguar Project 8 each could grab the sedan record from the Cadillac CTS -V.Our resident pro racer, Randy “Father Lap Time” Pobst, was there.It all just sort of fell in our lap. --> For months and months I’d been begging/bugging Lamborghini to let our test team have a crack at both the Urus and Aventador SVJ.I’d driven both, but with the exception of Scott Evans and a trip to Iceland with an Urus, no one else had touched either car.I wanted the rest of our team (plus, like, you know, the world ) to know what crazed yet competent performance monsters Lambo had built.The trick is, when you strap on instruments to test Lamborghinis, the Italian automaker likes it if an engineer or two is present.That’s Lambo’s rule and there’s nothing we can do about it.Finally, the email showed up.Tuesday April 30 would be the day.Sweet.As it turned out, two other things were happening that fateful week.For one, since we knew we’d have our greedy paws on the Urus, it was time to stage our now annual Best Driver’s SUV competition , the winner of which gets a ticket to play in the Best Driver’s Car festival this July.Last year we chose the Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio to represent the steroidal, yet nominally off-roadable machines.This year besides the Urus we had the Bentley Bentayga Speed, Jaguar F-Pace SVR, and Porsche Cayenne Turbo.Without boring you to tears, I spend a bizarre amount of time discussing racetracks with the fine people at Porsche.Meaning they knew we’d be lapping the Urus.Would we mind lapping their new uber-Cayenne while we were at it?Not at all!The other happening was an episode of Head 2 Head , the car comparison show hosted by myself and Mr.Jethro Bovingdon, available on the MotorTrend app, which had to be filmed during the same time period.Hey, why not split costs between various departments and film the track portion of that episode the same day we lap the Lambos and the Porsche?No one could think of a reason not to.Right, on with it.The current street-legal car lap record at Big Willow is held by the Porsche GT2 RS with Randy Pobst behind the wheel.In similar setup, it also has scorched Laguna Seca, Road Atlanta, and most recently Road America.The car is a metronome.A very quick metronome.When we first heard about the GT2 RS, it was under the guise of setting the production car lap record on the Nürburgring Nordschleife with a time of 6:47.25 with Lars Kern at the wheel, smashing the Lamborghini Huracan Performante’s previous record of 6:52.01.Almost a year later, the Aventador SVJ piloted by Marco Mapolli obliterated the GT2 RS’s record with an astonishingly quick lap of 6:44.97.Given that, could Randy and the Lambo SVJ beat the Porsche GT2 RS on our home track?No, not even close.The best Pobst could muster was a 1:24.92 lap, good enough to put the SVJ in 13th place all time, but nowhere near the GT2 RS’s 1:21.08 record.Nearly 4 seconds off the pace is equal parts confusing, disappointing, and upsetting.What happened?The Lambo’s brakes seemed to be the culprit.Randy despised them. “The effing thing won’t stop!” he hollered at me when he pulled in.And you can bet your racing suit he didn’t actually say, “effing.” I’d also bet that the SVJ’s magnetorheological dampers were freaked out by Big Willow’s notoriously awful (meaning rough and bumpy) surface.The Corvette Z06—which rides on nearly identical dampers—had a similar issue.The Corvette team spent two weeks on Big Willow coming up with a bumpy road setting that knocked nearly a second off the lap, 1:25.76 down to 1:25.00.Lamborghini didn’t take such measures at Willow when it developed the SVJ.Anyhow, Porsche’s record is not only safe for now, but Porsche thinks there’s another half a second in there somewhere.On to the SUVs.We agree, SUV lap times are silly.But until you people stop buying them (I own a hatchback and a wagon) this is how it’s going to be.The BMW X6 M went around Big Willow in 1:32.36, quicker than any SUV we’ve ever tested, including the Jeep Trackhawk (1:34.54) and the hunchbacked Bimmer’s shameless clone, the Mercedes -AMG GLE 63 S Coupe (1:36.00). Call us crazy, but the X6 M is quicker around Big Willow than a BMW M3 (1:32.51). The Urus and the third-gen Cayenne Turbo had their work cut out for them.Porsche was up first, and as Porsches are wont to do, it beat the BMW by nearly a second, posting a 1:31.59.That new record stood for at least 20 minutes.Then, the Lamborghini Urus crushed it, popping off a 1:30.87.How quick is that?Nearly as fleet as a BMW M6 Gran Coupe (1:30.66). Not bad for an SUV that stands at nearly 5,000 pounds (2,268 kg). Lambo was one for two, and so were we.Next up, sedans.Before we get started, I should point out that this isn’t the cleanest record.Here’s why: the ludicrously named Porsche Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid Sport Turismo went around Big Willow in 1:29.33.Thing is, that’s not a sedan, that’s technically a station wagon.So yes, if we were talking about four-door lap records, that 5,320-pound (2,413-kg) plug-in hybrid is quicker than the third-gen 2018 Cadillac CTS-V (1:29.69). However, it’s our pie and we’ll slice it however we like.Meaning that we should probably test the non-Sport Turismo version of the big Panamera.But, for purist reasons, the Caddy is the sedan lap record holder.Er, was.The Alfa Romeo gave it a good go, but with “only” 505 horsepower (the weakest car we tested that day by a lot) it was no match for the 640-hp CTS-V.A 1:31.80 lap puts it ahead of the X6 M, but nearly 2 seconds off the Cadillac ’s lap.The last chance belonged to Jaguar.Guess what?By the skin of its teeth, the $190K USD, AWD, 592-hp 2019 XE SV Project 8 put down a 1:29.59 lap, beating the CTS-V by 0.1 of one second.Boom, boom, boom.Out go the lights.So there you have it.One day, five cars, three records, and two new benchmarks set.Really, three new records, though the poor Porsche’s only stood for the briefest of moments.The best part of all this, at least from my perspective?We’ll randomly do it all over again on some unknown, unspecified day in the future.Go serendipity, go!             . The post Five Cars, Three Lap Records, Go! appeared first on Motor Trend Canada .'