Motor Trend New Car Buyer 27s Guide 2014

2014-2015

DISPLAY UNTIL 11-19-13 2014 ANNUAL SIM INTERNATIONAL TUNER SERIES

CAR TRUCK SUV

MODELS RATED& REVIEWED

COMPARISONS HOT COMPACTS

FULL-SIZE SEDANS

DRIVES CHEVY SILVERADO

ACURA MDXHYUNDAI SANTA FE

We didnt reinvent the wheel,

just the way they steer.

RLX with Technology Package shown. Learn more at acura.com or by calling 1-800-To-Acura. 2013 Acura. Acura, RLX and Precision All-Wheel Steer are trademarks of Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

INTRODUCING THE RLX WITH PRECISION ALL-WHEEL STEER.

Designed to give the driver unprecedented control, the Precision All-Wheel

Steer system aboard the RLX allows each rear wheel to independently adjust

its angle through turns. Its the most advanced steering system weve ever

built, not to mention an industry first. Its luxury, taken to a whole new level.

The new Acura RLX. Handsomely equipped at $54,450. Excludes $895 destination, tax, title, license and registration.

EditorialEditor-in-Chief Edward Loh @EdLoh Executive Editor Ron Kiino @RonKiino

Editor at Large Angus MacKenzie @Angus_MackDetroit Editor Scott Burgess @AutoCritic

Senior Features Editor Jonny Lieberman @MT_LovermanEuropean Editor Paul Horrell

Japan Editor Peter LyonAssociate Editor/Truck Trend Allyson Harwood @TruckTrendAH

Associate Editor Scott Evans @MT_EvansAssociate Editor Mike Febbo @MT_MikeFebbo

Associate Editor Rory Jurnecka @RoryJurneckaManager, Visual Assets Brian Vance @BrianNVance

Photography Editor Julia LaPalme @monstergrrlAssociate Photography Editor Michael Shaffer

TechnicalTechnical Director Frank Markus @MT_Markus

Testing Director Kim ReynoldsRoad Test Editor Scott Mortara

Associate Road Test Editor Carlos Lago @CarlosLago

ArtCreative Director Alan Muir

Managing Art Director Mike Royer @MT_RoyerSenior Art Director Andy Mock

Assistant Art Director William Walker @MT_dubdub Archivist Thomas Voehringer

ProductionCopy Chief Emiliana Sandoval @Emiliana505

Copy Editor Jacqueline Manfredi @Loves_Wylie Managing Editor Rusty Kurtz

Advertising Coordinator Gail Petito

ContributorsCorrespondents John Carey, Mike Connor,

Gavin Green, Jeremy Hart, Ben Oliver,

James Tate, Gary Witzenburg

Photographers Wesley Allison, Nick Bailey, Mark Bramley, Brian Brantley, Daniel Byrne, David Freers,

Jim Frenak, Robert Guio, Robert Kerian, Evan Klein, Jessica Walker

Artists Nigel Buchanan, Doug Fraser, Steve Hewett, Kevin House, Paul Laguette, Glenn Lumsden, Jason Raish,

Mark Stehrenberger

Motor Trend OnlineDigital Integration Director Michael Floyd @MT_Floyd

Digital Content Director Chris Clonts @CClontsNews Director Zach Gale @ZachGale

Production Manager Kirill Ougarov @kougarovAssociate Online Editors Erick Ayapana @Erkayapana, Benson Kong, Nate Martinez @Nate_Martinez, Carol Ngo,

Alex Nishimoto, Karla Sanchez, Jason Udy, Sheree Yang,

Christian Seabaugh @C_Seabaugh

Online Editor Truck Trend Melissa Spiering

Motor Trend TelevisionDirector, SIM Video Mike Suggett

Creative Manager Jim GleasonProduction Manager Brett Adkins

Post Production Manager Duane SempsonProduction Coordinators Brenda De Guzman,

Allison Meriwether

Senior Video Producers Corey Denomy, Clint StringfellowWriter/Host/Producer Jessi Lang @ImJessiLang

Video Producers Bradford Alicea, Cyrus Cambridge, Anthony Esposito, Ron James, Travis LaBella, Mark Lenardon,

Terren Lin, David Rivera, Felicia Robles,

Levi Rugg, Gabriel Sanchez, Kenneth Thompson,

Mike Villa, Sandon Voelker, Mike Wilson

Motor Trend Auto ShowsSVP, General Manager John F. Marriott VP, Executive Producer Steve Freeman

Motor Trend Certied VehiclesVP and Executive Director Ira Gabriel

National Marketing Manager Brad Hutcheson

MOTOR TRENDADVERTISING

EVP, GROUP PUBLISHER Eric Schwab

Advertising SalesChicago Tel: (312) 396-0620 Marc Gordon

Detroit 4327 Delemere Court, Royal Oak, Mi 48073 Tel: (248) 594-5999 Joe Didato, Mike DeTurris, Matt Smith

Los Angeles 831 S. Douglas St., El Segundo, Ca 90245 Tel: (310) 531-9900 Mark Dewey, Matt Smart, Alan Reed,

Bryan Fonseca, Chuck MillerNew York 261 Madison Ave., 6Th Flr., New York, Ny 10016

Tel: (212) 915-4000 Janet Catallo, Jim Keplesky

To advertise on this magazines website, or any of Source Interlink Medias other enthusiast sites,

please contact us at, [email protected]

Motor Trend Automotive GroupSenior Publishing Director Maria Jamison

VP, Digital Media Jason RiceVP, Marketing Ryan Payne

VP, Editorial Operations Amy DiamondVP, Manufacturing and Advertising Operations

Greg ParnellSenior Director, Ad Operations Pauline Atwood Director, Publishing Technologies Dale Bryson

Marketing Director Shawn HigginsCreative Marketing Manager Alex Flores

Senior Finance Director Jenny LeeAssistant to the President Desiree J. Borja

Assistant to the Group Publisher Ching Cornforth

Officers Of Source Interlink Companies, Inc.

President and Chief Executive Officer Michael SullivanEVP, Chief Financial Officer John Bode

EVP, Chief Administrative Officer Stephanie JusticeEVP, Chief Procurement Officer Kevin Mullan

Source Interlink Media, LlcPresident Chris Argentieri

General Manager David AlgireChief Creative Officer Alan Alpanian

SVP, Finance Dan BednarVP, Single Copy Sales and Marketing Chris Butler

EVP, Enthusiast Automotive Doug EvansSVP, New Product Development Howard Lim

Chief Content Officer Angus MacKenzieChief Analytics Officer John Marriott

SVP, Business Development Tyler SchulzeEVP, Sales and Marketing Eric Schwab

Digital MediaChief Technology Officer, Digital Media Raghu Bala

SVP, Digital Marketing Craig BuccolaSVP, Digital Product Development Todd Busby

VP, Product Management Geoff DeFranceVP, Digital Advertising Products and Operations

Jung Park

Consumer Marketing, Enthusiast Media

Subscription Company, Inc.VP, Consumer Marketing Tom Slater

VP, Retention and Operations Fulllment Donald T. Robinson III

Any submissions or contributions from readers shall be subject to and governed by Source Interlink Medias User Content

Submission Terms and Conditions, which are posted at http://privacy.sourceinterlinkmedia.com/submissions.html.

Canada Post: Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to IMEX Global Solutions, P.O. Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2.

Subscriptions: E-mail address changes to [email protected], write to P.O. Box 420235, Palm

Coast, FL 32142-0235 or call 800/800-6848 (U.S.), 386/447-6383 (international). Include name, address, and phone number on

any inquiries. Occasionally, our subscriber list is made available to reputable rms offering goods and services we believe would be of interest to our readers. If you prefer to be excluded, send

your current address label and a note requesting exclusion from these promotions to Source Interlink Media, LLC, 831 S. Douglas

St., El Segundo, CA 90245, Attn.: Privacy Coordinator. Copyright 2013 by Source Interlink Magazines, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED/

PRINTED IN THE USA.

Reprints: Contact Wrights Media @ 877/652-5295 (281/419-5725 outside the U.S. and Canada) to purchase quality custom

reprints or e-prints of articles appearing in this publication.

2014-2015 CAR TRUCK SUV

SIGNING ON THE DOTTED LINE

Allyson Harwood

THE ACT OF SIGNING your name at the

boom of a sales contract takes only

secondsmaybe 5 if you have a really

long namebut preparing to buy a new

car, truck, sport/utility, or van can take

much longer. This is especially true for

smart shoppers who want to make sure

they get the most for their money while

geing the right type of vehicle. But

as anyone who seeking a new vehicle

knows, there is a lot to the process of

narrowing it all down.

Lets say youve decided you want to

buy a sport/utility vehicle. The best way

to start is a list of what you want and what

you need. Whats your price range? Do

you need two rows or three? Would it

make more sense to go with a four-

cylinder engine for beer fuel economy,

or is that engine in that particular vehicle

too underpowered? Do you prefer two-,

all-, or four-wheel drive? What about the

safety equipment that comes standard

with the vehicle? How much can it tow?

These questions can seem overwhelming

at rst, but once you nish the list, nding

the answers starts to get easier. Because

now that the list is done, you can thumb

through Motor Trends Car, Truck, and

SUV Buyers Guide to see what vehicle or

vehicles best line up with your list.

Included in this guide are capsules that

cover every new car, pickup truck, sport/

utility vehicle, crossover, minivan, and full-

size van sold in the United States for 2014.

We even have sneak previews of some

2015 models. For all the vehicles, we

include information on the engines that

are available, fuel economy, performance,

safety, and warranties. Van capsules also

add the number or seats thatll fold at,

so you have a beer idea of whether or

not its easy to congure the interior for

your needs. With trucks and SUVs, weve

included towing capacity and payload.

For all vehicles, we tell you whats new for

2014, and the editors of Motor Trend give

you their opinions on each vehicle.

Buying a new vehicle can be

intimidating. Its an investment of both

time and money. Were here to help.

If you do the research ahead of time,

signing on the doed line wont be such

a daunting experience.

4 MOTORTREND.COM / BUYER'S GUIDE

06 SMALL IN Compact Sedans The latest compacts on the market face

the reigning champion. Scott Evans

20 FULL ON Large Sedans The newest large sedans take on the old guard. Rory Jurnecka

33 NEWCOMER Hyundai Santa Fe Scott Burgess

34 Chevrolet Silverado New truck proves character starts from within. Scott Burgess

40 Acura MDX Acura rewrites a crowd-pleasing favorite. Ron Kiino

www.motortrend.com

NEW CAR BUYERS GUIDE 168 Models Reviewed Motor Trend Editors

SUV, TRUCK & VAN BUYERS GUIDE 126 Models Reviewed Motor Trend Editors

BUYER'S GUIDE / MOTORTREND.COM 5

Dodge Dart ................... $26,415Honda Civic .................$24,555Kia Forte ....................... $25,610Mazda3 .........................$26,420 Nissan Sentra .............. $23,715

Prices as tested

COMPACT SEDANS

According to the old maxim,

Americans dont like small cars.

We buy trucks by the truckload

and midsize sedans more than

any other car segment. But because of gas

prices, the tough economy, or both, the

compact segment is growing. In 2012, it

accounted for roughly 13 percent of the U.S.

car market, with most entrants registering

sales increases over 2011. With frugality in

vogue, automakers expect the segment to

keep growing during the next several years.

Last year, the Mazda3 went bumper to

bumper with the Chevrolet Cruze, Ford

Focus, Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, and

Volkswagen Jetta in a battle of 40-mpg-

capable cars. The Mazda won because we

framed the conversation thus: Is there a

40-mpg car youd want to own? The ques-

tion was directed at the enthusiast who

wants an high-efficiency car thats also

fun to drive. In that measure, the Mazda

was without question the Goldilocks car. It

finished mid-pack on fuel economy, but it

was far and away the drivers choice.

Since then, three new pretenders to the

throne have arisen, and a fourth (Honda)

Words Scott Evans Photographs Mike Shaffer


made an emergency update to better

position it against the competition. More

important, were no longer asking which

is the best sports car, but which is the best

all-around car for the average consumer.

Were looking for the car that offers the

best value, content, fuel economy, and

safety in addition to performance. Its a

whole new ballgame.

1 Honda Civic 2 Nissan Sentra

3 Mazda3 4 Dodge Dart 5 Kia Forte

1

2

3

4

5

The latest compacts on the market face the reigning champion

HOP IN None of these cars compares with riding a roller coaster, for better or worse, but youll often nd many copies of each in the parking lot of Six Flags Magic Mountain.


Honda Civic

0-30 3.2 sec

0-40 4.6

0-50 6.8

0-60 9.1

0-70 11.9

0-80 15.8

0-90 20.1

PASSING, 45-65 MPH 4.7

LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.81 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.5 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)

TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 2000 rpm

Dodge Dart

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 3.2 sec

0-40 4.7

0-50 6.6

0-60 8.9

0-70 11.7

0-80 15.1

0-90 19.1





in handling. The Sentra received constant

complaints of terminal understeer, egregious

body roll, and lifeless steering. Said associ-

ate online editor Karla Sanchez: This car

handled so terribly, I couldnt wait until the

loop was over.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the

Kia Forte surprised everyone. In general,

weve known Kias to have rough rides and

elastic-feeling steering, but not this car.

The ride was pleasantly firm, almost sporty,

and the steering felt naturally weighted and

Ride & HandlingIn claiming its previous victory, the Mazda3

dazzled the judges with its crisp, natural

steering feel; responsive, unshakable chassis;

and sport sedan handling. It led this competi-

tion with the same trump card, at least in

the dry. As it happened, rain struck during

our evaluation loops, and opinions of the

Mazda changed quickly. Those who drove it

in the dry were again smitten with its excel-

lent handling on the winding road portion.

Those who drove it in the wet, however, told

a different tale. Despite its all-season tires,

the Mazda3 suddenly suffered a distinct lack

of grip and editors found it breaking loose at

both ends on wet roads when pushed hard,

eroding confidence. We were left to wonder

what all-season tires would have done for

its all-around performance. One point we all

agreed on was the ride quality, which was

among the best in the group.

Another car that divided the judges was

the Dodge Dart. Opinions were mixed on

the thick, meaty steering wheel. While it felt

direct, the steering was surprisingly heavy.

Also heavy was the car itself, outweighing the

nearest competitor by more than 300 pounds,

and it felt heavy from behind the wheel. The

Dart threw its heft into a corner, but once the

weight transferred, it was a smooth and stable

handler. The weight made the car feel planted

on the road, but it also hurt the ride quality,

though it wasnt the worst in the group.

In terms of ride and handling, the worst

was the Nissan Sentra. There wasnt a large

difference in ride quality among the group,

but the Sentra was at the bottom of the

spectrum. Where it really disappointed was

responsive, though it still provided no feed-

back. Many editors found it the second-most

fun car to drive behind the Mazda.

Somewhere in the middle was the Civic.

The lightest of the group, it felt that way on

the road. Ride quality and handling both fell

in the middle of the pack, though the steering

took some hits. Editor-in-chief Edward Loh

found that the light steering feels artificial

and requires jerky inputs. Initial input doesnt

seem to do much, so I kept dialing in more

and more steering. Hard to be smooth.

Kia Forte

Mazda3

Nissan Sentra

Dodge Dart 16.8 sec @ 84.6 mph

16.9 sec @ 82.5 mph

16.0 sec @ 87.3 mph

16.5 sec @ 85.9 mph

8.9

9.1

7.8

8.3

9.7

0-60 mph Quarter Mile

Honda Civic

Dodge Dart

The only car rolling on

chromies made the

Dart stand out among

all the alloys.

Honda Civic

Not just a back-up

camera, the Civic

gives you multiple

camera angles

including panoramic

and straight down for

maximum visibility.

Kia Forte

Power-folding mirrors

on a $25,610 car? We

love it when luxury

features trickle down.

Notable Features

Mazda3

The proper way to orient

a manual shifting feature,

and were glad Mazda

(and Dodge) agree.

Nissan Sentra

There was no question,

the Sentra had the most

rear seat room by far,

with more than some

midsize sedans.

17.4 sec @ 80.1 mph

Kia Forte

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 2.7 sec

0-40 4.1

0-50 5.7

0-60 7.8

0-70 10.3

0-80 13.2

0-90 17.1





Mazda3

0-30 2.9 sec

0-40 4.5

0-50 6.3

0-60 8.3

0-70 11.3

0-80 14.4

0-90 18.5





PerformanceThe Kia surprised us at the track. It was the

quickest to 60 mph by half a second and

stopped the shortest from the same speed by

2 feet. On our skidpad, it put up respectable

grip numbers and was the quickest around

our figure-eight course.

Out in the real world, we found the power

strong compared with the rest of the group,

and the transmission shifted quickly and

smoothly and seemed never to select the

wrong gear.

Less surprising was the poor showing

from the Sentra. It was the slowest to reach

60 mph and needed the longest distance to

stop, which confirmed driving impressions.

The primary culprit in drivetrain complaints

was the continuously variable transmission,

which all agreed was slow to respond and

then provided insufficient additional lever-

age when it did. Despite its poor handling on

the road and lowest average g on the figure-

eight test, the Sentra did manage to tie the

Dart for the highest average g on the skidpad,

even though it was all understeer on the road.

The Dart was a disappointment. Its raspy

exhaust and turbocharged engine seemed to

promise performance, but its jog to 60 mph

fell right in the middle of the pack, as did its

stopping distance. As noted above, it posted

the highest average g on the skidpad and the

figure eight, but tied the Mazda for second

in figure-eight lap time. Where the Dart

really fell down was in everyday driving. The

dual-clutch transmission was jerky and often

seemed confused in automatic mode.

Nissan Sentra

0-30 3.4 sec

0-40 5.1

0-50 7.1

0-60 9.7

0-70 13.0

0-80 17.3

0-90





121 ft

119 ft

117 ft

120 ft

124 ft

Braking 60-0

The only remedy was to manually shift

using the gear stick, which delivered fairly

quick and crisp shifts, though it upshifted

automatically at redline.

We were likewise disappointed in the

Civic. The engine felt weak at low rpm, but

like the Sentra, the fault lies squarely with

the transmission. The aging five-speed

gearbox was slow to shift and had no manual

mode. This carried over to the track, where

it was the second slowest to 60 mph and the

slowest around the figure eight. Its low curb

weight contributed to the second shortest

stopping distance, but it posted mid-pack

average g numbers.

The Mazda3 was a curiosity rather than

a disappointment. Despite its stellar dry

performance on the road, it didnt post the big

numbers at the track. It was the second-quick-

est to 60 mph and around the figure eight, but

dead last on the skidpad. It also finished third

in braking. Somehow, though, it all came

together on real-world roads, making the

Mazda3 the clear drivers favorite.

These arent sport sedans, but three of the five were surprisingly fun to drive.


Dodge Dart Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 36.5

CURB WEIGHT 3306 lb

WEIGHT DIST, F/R 61/39%

HEADROOM, F/R 38.6/37.0 in

LEGROOM, F/R 42.2/35.2 in

SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.2/56.1 in

CARGO VOLUME 13.1 cu

61.772.0

106.461.6183.9

EfficiencyThe two cars with the most overt techno-

logical approaches to fuel efficiency

performed the poorest. An accelerating

trend in the automotive industry today is to

replace a larger engine with a smaller, turbo-

charged one that, in theory, provides the

same power while using less fuel. This was

not the case for the Dart. Its turbocharged

1.4-liter engine was the smallest and offered

the most torque and second-highest horse-

power rating, but it returned a dismal 19.5

mpg on our evaluation loops, well below its

EPA estimates of 27/37 mpg city/highway. On

top of that, it was the only car in the test that

required premium fuel, a cost consideration

for value-conscious buyers.

Likewise unimpressive was the Sentras

continuously variable transmission,

which should theoretically always be at the

optimum gearing for fuel economy. With

the least horsepower and tied for the least

torque, youd expect the Sentra wouldnt

burn much fuel, but it returned the second-

lowest observed fuel economy at 21.2 mpg.

With ratings at 30/39 mpg city/highway, it

was a long way off. Nissan might be on to

something, quipped senior features editor

Jonny Lieberman. No one will drive this car

quickly and in an inefficient manner, as it

actually sounds like youre injuring the car

with your right foot.

57.

7

LAYOUT FWD, 5-PASS, 4-DOOR SEDAN

Outweighing the nearest competitor by 300 pounds, the Dart felt heavy from behind the wheel.


Honda Civic Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 35.4

CURB WEIGHT 2826 lb






56

.5

59.069.0

105.159.9179.4

As much as we knock the Civic because

its old five-speed transmission doesn't offer

manual control, it still gets the job done. The

Civic was the second-least powerful car pres-

ent and it felt like it behind the wheel, but

that little engine and old gearbox know how

to use fuel wisely. The Civic returned 23.5

mpg, which, while not stellar, was at least

closer to its 28/39-mpg city/highway ratings.

Kia had a rough go of it last year after the

EPA lowered the fuel economy ratings on a

number of its cars. The Forte wasn't affected,

and the new model certainly delivered.

Despite having the most horsepower and

second-highest torque rating, as well as a

conventional six-speed automatic, the Kia

returned 24.4 mpgfalling just within

the EPA city/highway ratings of 24/36 mpg

and good for second best in this compari-

son. Moreover, it was the only competitor

whose observed fuel economy fell within

its EPA ratings.

The big winner, though, was the car

that won the fuel economy comparison

on handling rather than mpg. The Mazda3,

with its funny-sounding Skyactiv badging

and no obvious technological tricks (theyre

all deep inside the engine), was the longest-

running model in this test and by far the

fuel-sipping champ. It handily bested the

competition by returning 25.3 mpg, but fell

short of its 28/40-mpg city/highway rating.

The Civic is the only car here named a Top Safety Pick+ from the IIHS.



2013 Mazda3 i Grand Touring Old design and cheap materials are offset by great seats.

Linear, nicely weighted, communicative and direct; the Mazda has the best steering, no question.

Three dierent screens try to deliver too much information at once, and mismatched colors and fonts look thrown together, not designed.

Big bolsters make the Mazda seats the best in a corner. So padding makes them comfortable on long trips, too.

2013 Dodge Dart Limited MultiAir Great design, lots of features, and neat graphics.

A massive in-dash screen replaces some gauges and allows a lot of customization.

The large touch screen is a great standard feature, but the Kias is just a lile easier to use.

Pulling up the passenger seat boom cushion reveals a handy hidden storage bin.

2013 Nissan Sentra SL The simple design takes no chances. It just works.

Wood trim on the doors and center console aempts to make the interior look more upscale.

Infotainment system is simple and very intuitive, if a bit small compared with others in the test.

Flat front seats oer no support when turning, but the rear seats have more room than some larger cars.

Cockpit/CabinMany people put a lot of stock in how a car

looks, but the truth is, youll spend far more

time looking at the inside of it than the

outside, and it greatly shapes your percep-

tion of the vehicle. In this category, the Sentra

clawed back some favor with the judges. The

rear seat and trunk are cavernous for the

class, and the navigation and entertainment

systems are simple and intuitive to use. Some

editors found the design dull, likening it to

a doctors waiting room, but others pointed

out that it barely feels downmarket from the

larger, more expensive Altima, a nice treat for

a value-conscious buyer.

The Forte received similar praise for being

second to the Sentra in rear seat space. It was

also dinged, albeit less so, for being cold and

dark with some odd ridges on the dash. Those

gripes were quickly overlooked, however, in

light of the segment-busting list of features,

such as heated and cooled front seats and

power-folding mirrors.

Also feature-rich was the Dart, with its

massive touch-screen infotainment system

and high-resolution, reconfigurable gauge

display. We appreciated the clear, easy-to-

use UConnect infotainment system, even

if it did seem a bit cluttered compared with

Kias UVO system. Editors also liked the front

and back steering wheel controls. Where

the Dart struggled was in seating, with hard

perches front and rear and compromised rear

headroom. Editors also complained about the

grainy, low-resolution back-up camera.

Riding mid-pack was the Civic, whose

bi-level instrument cluster and funky shapes

divided editors. It was given high marks for

being a strong improvement over the poorly

received 2012 model, and we appreciated the

better materials and quieter cabin. We took

issue, though, with the old, low-resolution

nav and its tiny buttons, and rear seat space

ranked smallest among the competitors.

The Mazda3 received some of the harshest

criticism. While we liked its sporty, support-

ive seats overall, many were disappointed

with its small, cramped rear seat. The dash-

board looked the oldest and appearing to be

made of the cheapest materials.

The split screens are the least well-

organized/executed, wrote Loh. None of

the screens matches in background colors,

fonts, or font colors, not in the instrument

panel, infotainment screen, or the two tiny

screens above. We were disappointed with

the lack of a back-up camera, but delighted

by the preferred manual shifting orientation

of forward for downshifts and backward for

upshifts, which the Dart shared.

2013 Honda Civic EX Video-game design is augmented by new, higher-quality materials.

A second display screen at the top of the dash allows you to see audio information while eaving the map on the main screen below.

The old navigation system has dated, low-res maps and ergonomic issues.

The seats are comfortable for long trips, but not particularly sporty.

The steering wheel buon changes steering eort and response between Normal, Comfort, and Sport.

UVO infotainment system looks sharp and is easy to usethe best here.

The Forte's seats arent quite as sporty as the Mazdas, but are a good compromise between support and comfort.

2014 Kia Forte EX Has a monochrome finish and odd ridges, but a high feature count.


Kia Forte Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 34.8

CURB WEIGHT 2944 lb






56

.5

SafetyWith safety a key concern among buyers, its

no surprise all these competitors performed

well in crash testing. They werent, however,

all created equal. For example, Honda found

out about the Insurance Institute for High-

way Safetys new small-offset crash test and

designed the new Civic accordingly. So the

Civic is the only car here named a Top Safety

Pick+ after receiving a Good score in all tests.

(None of the others has yet completed the

small-offset test.) The 2013 Civic hasnt been

tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, but the 2012 car received

5-star front and side ratings and a 4-star

rollover rating for 5 stars overall.

Like the Honda, the 2014 Forte hasnt been

crash-tested yet. In this case, though, the

Kia is a thoroughly redesigned car and not a

refresh, so its difficult to say how it will fare.

The old Forte, for what its worth, received

4 stars and Good ratings in all tests and was

named a Top Safety Pick.

Its a similar story with the 2013 Sentra,

which also has yet to be fully tested. NHTSA

has crashed it, and gave it a 5-star side impact

rating, 4 stars for front and rollover tests, and

4 stars overall. IIHS hasnt tested it, but the

old model was not a Top Safety Pick because

of an Acceptable rating in the roof crush test.

There is plenty of information, however,

on the oldest car in the test. The Mazda3 is an

61.370.1

106.361.8179.5

When it came to ride and handling, the smooth and sporty Forte surprised everyone.



Mazda3 Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 34.2

CURB WEIGHT 2987 lb






57.

9

IIHS Top Safety Pick, thanks to Good ratings

all around, but it didnt fare quite as well at

NHTSA. Its a mixed bag, with a 5-star front

impact rating, 4-star rollover rating, and 3-star

side impact rating, combined for a 4-star over-

all rating. Editors also noted and appreciated

the optional Blind Spot Warning system.

We appreciated the Blind Spot Warning

and Rear Cross Path Detection systems on

the Dart as well, not to mention the only

Driver Knee Bolster airbags in the group. The

Dart fared better in crash testing, earning a

5-star overall rating on 5-star front and side

impact ratings and a 4-star rollover rating.

It is also a Top Safety Pick with Good scores

across the board.

ValueIn a price-conscious segment like this, value

is a major consideration. Thats especially

true in this test, where all the competitors

were heavily equipped with pricey options

such as navigation systems, leather seats,

keyless entry, and more.

None was more heavily loaded than the

Mazda3, which rang in just above the Dart

at $26,420. Being the oldest model in the

test and lacking a back-up camera hurt its

value argument, though we enthusiasts

found quite a lot of value in its handling and

performance.

The Dart also became something of a

tough sell at $26,415. It was feature-rich with

60.469.1

103.959.8180.9

It all came together on real-world roads, making the Mazda3 the clear drivers favorite.



its big display screens, automatic headlights

and wipers, heated steering wheel, and

more. The problem is, the Forte offers all

that and more for $805 less. With by far the

worst observed fuel economy, the Darts

value appeal dropped precipitously in the

eyes of the judges.

That Forte, though, blew us away.

Power front seats that are both heated and

cooled, heated rear seats, power-folding

side mirrors, a heated steering wheel,

multiple steering modes, and more, all for

a mid-pack price of $25,610. Add to that the

second-best fuel economy in the test and

far and away the best warranty, and the Kia

makes a serious value proposition.

Honda's Civic was a tougher case to

make. It offered many of the features

the others did, but the clunky naviga-

tion system and mid-pack observed fuel

economy hurt it.

On the other hand, it was very nearly

the least expensive car here at $24,555,

and it got high marks for its quality inte-

rior materials.

The Sentra fell into the same trap as

the Civic, offering the lowest as-tested

price by just over $100 at $23,715. While

that appealed to our wallets, the second-

worst observed fuel economy and the poor

handling made us reconsider how our

hypothetical money was being spent.

Barely feeling downmarket from the Altima, the Sentra is a nice treat for a value-conscious buyer.


Nissan Sentra Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 34.8

CURB WEIGHT 2882 lb






58

.9

60.269.3

106.360.2182.1


In order to give you a better picture

of what your new car purchase might

cost in the long run, weve asked

IntelliChoice, our partner in the Motor

Trend Automotive Group, to provide

five-year cost of ownership data for

our consumer-focused Big Tests.

IntelliChoice is a recognized leader in

providing data on average depre-

ciation, fuel cost, fees, insurance,

financing, maintenance and repairs,

and more for every car on the market.

And if youre not ready to

buy one of the cars in this

comparison today, Intelli-

Choice also provides data

on used and Certified Pre-Owned

cars, so you can buy a used model in

a few years time with confidence.

Because these five vehicles are in

the same class, there are many cate-

gories in which the competitors are

1ST PLACE Kia ForteHandles well,

sips fuel, loaded

with exclusive

features, and

priced just right.

Whats not to like?

2ND PLACE Mazda3An enthusiasts

special and fuel-

sipper to boot,

weighed down by a

heavy price tag and

missing features.

3RD PLACE Dodge DartSport handling

and a long list of

features werent

enough to

overcome a high

price and terrible

gas mileage.

4TH PLACE Honda CivicA weak drivetrain,

middling fuel

economy, and

frustrating nav

system sank a

solid entry.

5TH PLACE Nissan SentraPoor handling, poor

fuel economy, and a

shorter feature list

outweigh a low price

and big back seat.

Term Definitions from IntelliChoiceCost of Ownership closely matched, such as taxes and fees. Where they begin to separate

are in categories such as insurance,

depreciation, fuel, and maintenance

and repairs. The Sentra, for example,

is the most expensive to insure

but has the lowest projected fuel

cost. The Mazda3 has the highest

projected repair cost, while the

Dart suffered the largest projected

depreciation. The Forte is expected

to have the lowest maintenance and

repair costs, thanks to its generous

warranty, but its projected

fuel cost and deprecia-

tion are high. It should be

noted the all-new Fortes

projections are based on the last-

generation 2013 models data. The

Civic, with its low price and lowest

depreciation, comes out on top with

the lowest cost of ownership five

years down the road.

C H O O S E Y O U R C A R W I S E LY

FINANCING Assumes 10%

down payment on a 60-month

loan and an annual interest

rate of 3.89%.

FUEL U.S. Government EPA

mileage figures. Mileage is

60% highway driving, 40% city.

Fuel cost per gallon is $3.61

for unleaded regular, $3.75 for

unleaded mid-grade, $3.89 for

premium, and $3.95 for diesel,

subject to inflation of 2.90%.

Based on Energy Information

Administration U.S. 6-month

average self-service regular,

mid-grade, and premium gaso-

line and diesel prices. For the

Best Deals monthly analysis,

6-month rolling average fuel

costs are used.

MAINTENANCE Services

performed generally at manu-

facturer's suggested intervals

where stated. Other services

done at selected intervals.

Cost per service is based upon

industry-standard service times

and national labor rate aver-

ages. Parts prices are based on

manufacturer's suggested list

price where available.

INSURANCE Because of the

extreme variance in insurance

costs, the figures listed in

this report are estimates for

comparative purposes. We

assume the following: Principal

operator is under age 65; all

drivers have more than 6 years

experience with no charge-

able accidents; vehicle is for

personal use; driver lives in a

suburban/urban community;

with: collision: $500 deduct-

ible, comprehensive: $500

deductible, medical: $25,000,

property: $50,000, personal

liability: $100,000/$300,000,

uninsured driver: $25,000/

$50,000.

DEPRECIATION Based on the

assumption that you keep your

vehicle for 5 years, after which

time you sell it in a private

party transaction (not sold to a

dealer). Also assumes that the

vehicle is in good condition

with 70,000 miles (14,000

miles per year).

REPAIRS Based on extended

service contracts that will

pay for repairs for at least 5

years or 70,000 miles with 0

deductible. Service contract

pricing is adjusted down for

reasonable profit and a longer

than standard manufacturer

warranty.

AVERAGE SALES TAX A

5.50% sales tax is used as a

nationwide average; year one

title and registration fees are

included based on a state

sales weighted average.

Based on the price of the

vehicle as of January.

STATE FEES includes title and

registration fees and are based

on a sales weighted average

for all states. Registration fees

vary depending on the weight,

price, and class of the vehicle.

OWNERSHIP COSTS This is

the total cost of ownership for

this vehicle during 5 years and

70,000 miles.

PURCHASE PRICE

(INCLUDING TAX) $25,304 $26,284 $24,324 $26,422 $27,372

AVG STATE FEES $416 $417 $409 $424 $419

DEPRECIATION $11,994 $14,272 $12,089 $13,211 $15,821

FINANCING $2323 $2411 $2231 $2425 $2511

INSURANCE $7620 $7260 $8514 $8098 $6934

FUEL $7945 $8926 $7690 $7842 $8954

MAINTANENCE $1605 $1452 $1997 $1828 $1840

REPAIRS $565 $163 $573 $671 $488

5-YEAR COST

OF OWNERSHIP $32,468 $34,901 $33,503 $34,499 $36,968

Honda Civic EX Kia Forte EX Nissan Sentra SLMazda3i Grand Touring

Dodge Dart Limited MultiAir

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.


DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD

ENGINE TYPE turbocharged I-4, iron block/aluminum head

I-4, aluminum block/head




VALVETRAIN SOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl

DISPLACEMENT 83.5 cu in/1368 cc 109.8 cu in/1799 cc 122.0 cu in/1999 cc 121.9 cu in/1998 cc 109.7 cu in/1798 cc

COMPRESSION RATIO 9.8:1 10.6:1 11.5:1 12.0:1 9.9:1

POWER (SAE NET) 160 hp @ 5500 rpm 140 hp @ 6500 rpm 173 hp @ 6500 rpm 155 hp @ 6000 rpm 130 hp @ 6000 rpm

TORQUE (SAE NET) 184 lb- @ 2500 rpm 128 lb- @ 4300 rpm 154 lb- @ 4700 rpm 148 lb- @ 4100 rpm 128 lb- @ 3600 rpm

REDLINE 6200 rpm 6700 rpm 6800 rpm 6500 rpm 6400 rpm

WEIGHT TO POWER 20.7 lb/hp 20.2 lb/hp 17.0 lb/hp 19.3 lb/hp 22.2 lb/hp

TRANSMISSION 6-speed twin-cl auto 5-speed automatic 6-speed automatic 6-speed automatic Cont variable auto

AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.43:1/2.75:1 4.44:1/2.33:1 3.06:1/2.37:1 3.59:1/2.15:1 3.52:1/1.93:1

SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs


Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs

STEERING RATIO 15.0:1 14.9:1 14.5:1 16.2:1 18.6:1

TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.3 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.4

BRAKES, F;R 12.0-in vented disc;10.4-in disc, ABS

11.1-in vented disc;10.2-in disc, ABS


10.9-in vented disc; 10.4-in disc, ABS


WHEELS 7.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum 7.0 x 17-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum

TIRES 225/45R17 91H M+S Continental ContiProContact

205/55R16 89H M+S Continental ContiProContact

215/45R17 87H M+S Nexen Classe Premiere CP671

205/55R16 89H M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400

205/50R17 89V M+S Continental ContiProContact

CONSUMER INFO

BASE PRICE $20,890 $18,955 $20,200 $23,595 $20,610

PRICE AS TESTED $26,415 $24,555 $25,610 $26,420 $23,715

STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes

AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side,f/r curtain, front knee

Dual front, front side,f/r curtain




BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi

POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 10 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi

ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/100,000 mi N/A 5 yrs/60,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi N/A

FUEL CAPACITY 15.8 gal 13.2 gal 13.2 gal 14.5 gal 13.2 gal

EPA CITY/HWY ECON 27/37 mpg 28/39 mpg 24/36 mpg 28/40 mpg 30/39 mpg

ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 125/91 kW-hrs/100 mi 120/86 kW-hrs/100 mi 140/94 kW-hrs/100mi 120/84 kW-hrs/100 mi 112/86 kW-hrs/100 mi

CO2 EMISSIONS 0.63 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi 0.69 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi 0.58 lb/mi

MT FUEL ECONOMY 19.5 mpg 23.5 mpg 24.4 mpg 25.3 mpg 21.2 mpg

RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded regular

2013 Dodge Dart Limited MultiAir 2013 Honda Civic EX 2014 Kia Forte EX

2013 Mazda3i Grand Touring 2013 Nissan Sentra SL

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS

Conclusion Some comparison tests are blowouts, and

those are easy to judge. Then there are

tests like this, where the field is closely

matched in nearly every category. Each car

had strengths and weaknesses and none

completely ran away with the award. There

wasnt a perfect car in the bunch, but

several that would be very good choices

depending on your priorities.

If, for example, youre an enthusiast

like us, youll be happiest with the sporty

Mazda. It would also appeal to those who

value fuel economy above all else. If safety

and operating costs are priorities, youll be

comforted by the Hondas crash test scores

and low cost of ownership. Those who love

features will be happy with the Dart and

Forte, and price-conscious buyers will find

the Sentras low as-tested price appealing.

After weighing the contenders in each

category against what would best serve the

average compact car buyer, we picked the

2014 Kia Forte as the best all-around car here

and the winner of this test. Its combination

of performance, fuel efficiency, reasonable

pricing, and endless feature list had our

judges agreeing its the car wed recommend

to our friends and family.Q


Chevrolet Impala LTZ $39,505Chrysler 300S ............ $40,625Ford Taurus SEL ........ $33,490Kia Cadenza ................ $41,900 Toyota Avalon Ltd. ..... $42,719

Prices as tested

LARGE SEDANS

MOTOR TREND

Words Rory Jurnecka Photographs Jessica Walker

1 Chevrolet Impala LTZ 2 Chrysler 300S

3 Kia Cadenza 4 Ford Taurus SEL 5 Toyota Avalon Limited

THE NEWEST LARGE SEDANS TAKE ON THE OLD GUARDIs there a more peculiar auto-

motive segment than the entry-

level, full-size sedan? Loved by

comfort-seeking retirees, client-

shuttling businessmen, and family-hauling

parents alike, the full-size sedan means many

things to many people. To us, the full-size

segment should mean comfort, interior

space, and lots of features. A step up from the

popular midsize market, these sedans are

aimed squarely at those who cant afford (or

dont want to pay for) a full-fledged luxury

platform.

The last time Motor Trend visited this space,

we pitted the Toyota Avalon (the very same one

we have here, in fact) against the new Hyundai

Azera and the aging Nissan Maxima. The

result of that comparison (Motor Trend, April

2013) was a photo finish between the Hyundai

and the Toyota, with the Avalon winning by

just a grille. Now, the Avalon is back to take

on two brand-new-to-market challengers, the

Chevrolet Impala and Kia Cadenza, along with

two recent large refreshes, the Chrysler 300S

and the Ford Taurus.

The winner will need to display superiority

through multiple criteria, including ride

comfort, interior refinement, performance,

fuel economy, safety, and value. Full-size

sedan shoppers are about as concerned

with the fun-to-drive aspect as they are

with Justin Bieber, so well put our normal

enthusiast perspectives aside for this one and

concentrate on what makes a full-size sedan

so desirable to so many people.

Ride and HandlingIf youre shopping for a full-size sedan, ride

comfort is paramount. Leave the kidney-

busting, sport-tuned damping for the sport

sedansthis segment is all about a ride

that wont leave sloshed latte all over your


Toyota Avalon

Not just heated rear

seats, but a climate-

control knob for rear

passengers, too.

Chrysler 300

The only contender

to offer heated and

cooled cupholders.

Chevrolet Impala

The touch screen

display rises to reveal

a USB input and

storage for an iPod.

Notable Features

Kia Cadenza

An analog dash clock

and faux wood trim

make an attempt at

old-guard luxe.

Ford Taurus

The space-age center

stack is sleek and stylish.

Chrysler 300S

0-30 2.5 sec

0-40 3.6

0-50 4.9

0-60 6.4

0-70 8.3

0-80 10.6

0-90 13.0





Chevrolet Impala LTZ

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 2.4 sec

0-40 3.4

0-50 4.8

0-60 6.2

0-70 8.2

0-80 10.6

0-90 13.1





Ford Taurus SEL

Kia Cadenza

Toyota Avalon Ltd.

Chevrolet Impala LTZ 14.8 sec @ 96.2 mph

14.9 sec @ 97.1 mph

15.1 sec @ 95.0 mph

14.8 sec @ 95.7 mph

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.3

6.3

Chrysler 300S

14.7 sec @ 97.4 mph

business colleagues white-collared shirt.

Sad to say, a comfortable, composed ride

is something the Avalon just doesnt have,

as we noted in our last full-size comparison.

Associate editor Mike Febbo found it crashes

and bangs over the smaller bumps, then

just floats away over the bigger ones. Those

crashes and bangs also transmitted a lot of

noise through the cabin, leading to a cheap

and unrefined feel, according to executive

editor Ron Kiino. The Avalons steering

seemed artificial, though the Toyota did feel

fairly nimble on the twistier sections of our

drive route, in part because of its low 3557-

pound curb weight.

The Chrysler 300 had a firmer than average

ride as well, but managed to maintain a strong

level of comfort and composure. It rolled little

in corners and had plenty of grip, but as the

only one in the pack to tip the scales at more

than 2 tons, there was no hiding the 300s

bulk. Perhaps most disappointing was that the

Chryslers rear-drive platform didnt make it

feel much different from the rest of the front-

drivers. Around the curves, the car felt much

more nose-heavy than its best-in-test 51/49-

percent front/rear weight split would suggest.

By comparison, the 3968-pound Ford

Taurus (the second-heaviest car here) was

decidedly middle of the pack. On the road,

the Taurus is acceptable, said associate

online editor Benson Kong. The car bounces

around a bit, but it isnt uncomfortable. That

soft, floaty ride contributed to massive body

roll in corners that, when combined with

quick turn-in, tossed occupants around more

than wed like.

The Impala, while lighter on its feet than

0-60 mph Quarter Mile


Ford Taurus SEL

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 2.5 sec

0-40 3.6

0-50 5.0

0-60 6.6

0-70 8.8

0-80 11.1

0-90 13.6





Kia Cadenza

0-30 2.4 sec

0-40 3.5

0-50 4.8

0-60 6.3

0-70 8.3

0-80 10.4

0-90 13.0





Toyota Avalon Limited

0-30 2.3 sec

0-40 3.3

0-50 4.8

0-60 6.3

0-70 8.0

0-80 10.1

0-90 12.5





115 ft

115 ft

125 ft

118 ft

120 ft

the 300, drew fans for its American car

ridesupple and never crashy, though stable

at the same time.

Said Kong, The Impala is my pick for most

appropriate ride of the segment. Theres a bit

of a controlled heave to let you know, Hey,

the car is going to provide as plush a ride

as it can. Kiino agreed, The ride is well-

composed. Much better than Toyotas and

marginally better than Kias.

But what of the Kia? Associate online

editor Nate Martinez noted of the Cadenza,

Its extremely smooth, well-sorted,

and amazingly comfortable. While the

Kias steering lacked much feel, it wasnt

significantly worse off than most others in

the group, and body roll was minimal. Also

worth noting: The Kia drove like the smallest

car in the group, even though its larger in

every exterior dimension than the Avalon.

PerformanceFun fact: Every vehicle in this test has a dual-

overhead cam, 24-valve, 60-degree V-6 under

the hood. The greatest variance between the

smallest engine here (Kia) and the largest

(Chrysler) is a measly 16 cubic inches. Its

what the engineers did with those cubic

inches that matter.

The Avalon impressed everyone with

its smooth, punchy power delivery and a

transmission that was quick to respond,

especially in Sport. With the lightest weight

and such an eager V-6, it wasnt a surprise

when the Toyota posted the top quarter-mile

time of the group. The 3.5-liter V-6 is the best

part of this car, said Kong. We didnt even

regret not having manual gear selection.

Kias Cadenza also impressed with its eager

3.3-liter mill and paddle-shiftable six-speed

auto. Though only midpack on output with

293 hp on tap, the Kia tied for second-quickest

quarter-mile time with the most powerful car

in the group: the 305-hp Chevy Impala. On

the road, both cars felt plenty quick merging

into busy freeway traffic, but on winding,

hilly roads, the Chevys transmission hunted

endlessly for the proper gear, resulting in

frustration and a lot of engine noise. Manual

mode is an option, but per Kiino, The toggle

buttons arent the quickest or easiest to use.

Give me paddles!

Most editors found the Kias shift paddles

well-placed, but thought downshifts were

a little slow to arrive, while upshifts were

usually quick.

The only other car in this pack to offer

paddle shifters was the Chrysler 300S.

Feedback was generally positive for the 300s

3.6-liter Pentastar engine and adjoining eight-

speed automatic. Though the Chrysler was the

heaviest car of the group, it trailed the Avalon

by just 0.2 second in the quarter mile and did

it with a burly rumble from its exhaust. The

300 also earned praise from Kiino for its quick-

acting gearbox. The eight-speed is sweet

Braking 60-0

The Impala drew fans for its plush American car ride over rough stretches of road.

Chevrolet Impala LTX Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 38.8

CURB WEIGHT 3855 lb






62.273.0

111.762.0201.3

58

.9


smooth, quick, and intuitive.

The Taurus brought up the rear of the pack

in most performance measures. Slowest in

the quarter mile and the longest-stopping car

from 60 mph at 125 feet (the 300 and Impala

were shortest at 115), the Ford had just 20

more horsepower than the Avalon to bring its

additional 400 pounds up to speed.

That said, its quick turn-in and huge

255-width tires were enough to bring it the

second-quickest time in our figure-eight

testing, behind the 300. Unfortunately, the

Ford suffered from lots of engine noise and a

balky transmission, with similar gear hunting

and awkward button-style manual modes to

those of the Chevy.

EfficiencyWith curb weights in this group ranging from

just shy of 3600 pounds to more than 4100,

your average 3-and-then-some-liter V-6 has to

work reasonably hard to gather and maintain

momentum. While we do tend to push our

test cars a bit harder than the average user, our

figures take into account freeway driving, city

driving, and the type of winding, hilly back

roads you might find on your next weekend

getaway. With all the cars driven the same way

on the same roads, were able to draw some

conclusions about which are more efficient in

the real worldEPA numbers aside.

Just looking at EPA numbers shows that four

of our cars are rated at 19 mpg city (the Avalon


The 300S rode well and rolled little in corners, but there was no hiding its considerable bulk.

Chrysler 300S Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 38.9

CURB WEIGHT 4110 lb






63.475.0

120.263.8198.6

58

.7

LAYOUT RWD, 5-PASS, 4-DOOR SEDAN

is 21 mpg city) and a spread of 28 to 31 mpg

highway (Kia at the bottom end, Toyota and

Chrysler at the top). Our observed, real-world

numbers were nothing close to those.

Even an eight-speed transmission couldnt

help the Chrysler. The 300s Pentastar V-6

downed fuel like a hipster chugging PBR to keep

its 2 tons moving, returning a lackluster 16.1

mpg in our testing. Thats 3 mpg less than even

its EPA city estimate. The Ford fared a bit better

at 18.1 mpg, but with its constant gear-hunting

and second heaviest curb weight it couldnt

contend for the top spot. Not surprisingly, the

Ford and Chrysler had the worst weight-to-

power ratios of the group, with 13.8 and 13.7 lb/

hp, respectively.

The Chevy and Kia finished just 0.1 mpg apart

at 19.0 and 18.9 mpg, respectively, an especially

impressive performance for the Chevy given

its extra 100 pounds over the Kia and its

penchant for gear-hunting. Both cars effectively

matched their estimated city EPA rating, which,

considering our road driving loop, is fair.

The not-so-surprising winner of the fuel-

economy shootout was the Toyota Avalon.

With observed fuel economy of 22.1 mpg, not

only did the Toyota beat its city EPA rating by 1

mpg, it also beat the Chryslers observed rating

by a huge 6 mpg, despite an equal EPA highway

rating of 31 mpg. In our last full-size test, the

Avalon outsipped the Hyundai Azera and

Nissan Maxima by nearly 3 mpg.


2014 Chevrolet Impala LTZ Its middle of the road in most areas, but the rear cabin is roomy.

2013 Ford Taurus SEL A stylized dash and instrument display cant make up for big misses.

2013 Toyota Avalon Limited Big on room and features, but materials need improvement.

The Impalas steering wheel took heat from one tester for its plain-Jane aestheticsa valid point, as it does look dated.

The touch screen display looks nice, but suers from quite a bit of lag in transitioning between audio channels and navigation duty.

The Chevys front seats are comfortable, but the gray leather/teal stitching combo is hideous. Lots of rear cabin space in this one, though most editors found the rear bench too hard.

The instrument panel is a lile busy with a combination of standard analog and digital.

The center stack design is clean and futuristic, but MyFord Touch is ergonomically troubled and clunky.

A large center console and dash rob the front cabin of room, while the rear seating area lacks in comfort and space.

The Avalon is cursed with lifeless, articial steering that rms up in Sport mode but oers lile feedback.

The dash design is simple, modern, and elegant, but the overall material quality is disappointing, with cheap-looking plastics.

The front seats are heated and cooled, although the leather is a lile rm. Rear legroom is massive and the bench is heated.

2013 Chrysler 300S Heavy on features, but the cramped rear seat is a letdown.

2014 Kia Cadenza Well-trimmed, with lots of space front and rear, unless youre tall.

Cockpit/CabinA full-size sedans interior is a complex thing.

Not only does it have to provide the driver with

comfort, practicality, and pleasing aesthetics,

it also has to provide the same for up to four

passengers.

As a near-luxury segment, theres also a

higher expectation of quality for full-size

sedans. Just as no one would pay for business

class and be happy flying coach instead, full-size

sedan shoppers shouldnt settle for midsize

amenities.

The Avalon made up some ground in this

category, too, with an interior that drew style

praise from nearly everyone. Though the

material quality didnt wow every editor, the

rear seat did with an abundance of legroom and

separate climate controls instead of just vents

as in the competition. The Avalon was also

exclusive in offering three (instead of just two)

12-volt outlets and featuring auto up/down rear

windows. As with the Kia, the rear seats are also

heated.

Kia scored high here as well. Though on

paper, rear seat legroom comes up a few inches

short to the Toyota, sitting in the rear cabin

reveals little difference in actual space. We also

praised the Kia for its rear-window sunshade (as

in the 300 and Avalon), soft leather upholstery,

and heated and cooled front seats (also seen in

the Toyota and Chevy). One strike against: Front

and rear headroom were found to be slightly

lacking for 6-plus-footers, possibly to do with

the panoramic sunroof. Some also disliked the

virtual gauge display.

The best of the rest was the Chevrolet Impala,

with a fairly spacious but somewhat hard and

uncomfortable rear seat. We also took issue

with the laggy center display and questionable

gray leather with teal stitching, which is a color

combination we might have seen at a Sizzler

restaurant in the 1990s. That said, headroom

was good front and rear, and there were two

USB ports in the center console.

Trailing just behind was the Chrysler 300

with less usable rear seat room than the others

had despite its huge dimensions. While the

dashboard layout was pleasant enough and

the display worked well, some felt the all-black

interior needed to be livened up a little.

Bringing up the rear was the Ford Taurus,

with its gun-slit rear window visibility,

marginal rear seat room (though some found

slightly more foot and legroom than in the

300), and plenty of hard plastic interior

materials. This being a low-optioned tester,

the Taurus was also low on features and many

found the front seating area cramped as

well, with an oversized center console and

protruding dash.

Blue backlit gauges are a nice design touch that serves to break up the otherwise overwhelmingly dark interior.

The touch screen nav display is large as well as quick and easy to use. A white-faced analog clock adds a touch of class.

Heated front seats are rm but supportive. Rear seat room is lackluster, especially given the 300s huge overall size. Heavy on features, but the rear seat is cramped.

Virtual speedometer mimics that in the Mercedes S-Class. Opinions were divided.

Faux wood trim and an analog clock give the Cadenza a touch of pseudo old-guard luxury.

The Kias so leather front seats are heated and cooled. The rear bench is big on legroom and also heated.


In acceleration, braking, and handling, the Taurus brought up the rear of the pack.

Ford Taurus SEL Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 39.6

CURB WEIGHT 3968 lb






65.376.2

112.065.5202.9

60

.7


SafetyIts all about the trickle-down tech. Once

found only in the rarified air of S-Classes

and 7 Series sedans, adaptive cruise control,

lane-departure warning, precollision systems,

adaptive lighting, and blind-spot monitoring

have made their way to the masses. The

Kia, for example, includes all those things,

plus eight airbags when the boxes for the

Technology and Luxury packages are ticked, as

on our tester. Unfortunately, the Cadenza is so

new to market that it has yet to be crash-tested

by either the IIHS or NHTSA. The similar

Hyundai Azera was tested by the IIHS and

named a Top Safety Pick, though it has yet to

be tested by the NHTSA.

The Impala is also yet to be tested by either

safety organization, meaning crash test results

can only be hinted at by the Cadillac XTS,

with which it shares a platform. The XTS also

received a Top Safety Pick rating from the

IIHS, and our Impala came with blind-spot

monitoring, frontal-collision warning, and a

lane departure warning system all standard as

part of the 2LZ package.

The Avalon, Taurus, and 300 have all

been tested by the NHTSA and the IIHS,

each receiving 5-star overall and Top Safety

Pick scores by the respective organizations,

though the Toyota was the only one that didnt

achieve five stars on the NHTSAs frontal crash

test. As expected by its entry-level price, the


Despite its large exterior dimensions, the Kia drove like a much smaller car than it really is.

Kia Cadenza Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 36.5

CURB WEIGHT 3755 lb






63.072.8

112.063.0195.5

58

.1


Taurus is lightest on techy safety features, with

no preemptive crash avoidance to speak of,

though it does have eight airbags.

Our 300 came equipped with blind-spot

monitoring and what Chrysler calls Cross Path

Detection, which monitors intersections and

driveways for vehicles approaching from the

side. Forward collision warning and adaptive

cruise control are also part of our cars SafetyTec

package, among other features. Seven airbags

can be found in the 300s cabin.

Like the 300, the Avalon includes adaptive

cruise control in its Technology package, as in

our car, and adds a precollision system to boot.

Blind-spot monitoring is standard and the

Toyota boasts 10 airbags.

ValueIn these times, value is more important than

ever. The midsize sedan segment is one of

the industrys largest markets, offering lower

prices than most anything in the full-size

range. The question that follows is: Whats

the rationale for going full-size over midsize?

Interior space and luxury-type features are the

most popular answers, so which of our pack

gives the most for the least amount of money?

Though the Taurus is light on the wallet

with the lowest as-tested price by roughly

$6000, it was also light on content and space,

and the only car here without nav. For the

$33,490 as-tested price, youd get better bang

for the buck in the midsize segment.


The Avalon crashed and banged over bumps, transmitting lots of harsh noise to the cabin.

Toyota Avalon Limited Dimensions

TURNING CIRCLE 37.4

CURB WEIGHT 3557 lb






62.672.2

111.062.2195.3

57.

5


We hoped for a little more from the

Chrysler 300 as well. Though it offers enough

options to rival luxury sedans at a whole other

price level, value here also means a rear seat

that doesnt penalize those who have to sit in

it. Value also means offering reasonable fuel

mileage, and with the lowest efficiency of the

group, the Chrysler falls well short of the mark

laid down by its competitors in this test.

Chevys Impala fared better, offering

features of the most expensive car here at a

price tag that was $3000 less. A large rear seat

and the second-best fuel efficiency also spell

value with capital letters, and acceleration is

just 0.1 second slower than the quickest car in

this competition.

That leaves the Avalon and the Cadenza

at $42,500 and $41,900, respectively. The

Toyotas huge fuel economy advantage,

roomy rear seat, and exclusive features all

bode well for its performance here. But the

Kia takes the value cake with similar interior

space to the Toyota, better interior materials,

19-inch wheels, and lane-departure warning,

all for hundreds less than the Avalon. Sure,

$600 isn't much of a difference at this price

point, but here's the kicker: If you remove

the safety-laden technology package from

the Kias option list, its price drops to under

$39,000, making it the second-cheapest car of

the group behind the Ford. Now that's a strong

value proposition, if you ask us.


PURCHASE PRICE

(INCLUDING TAX) $38,724 $41,633 $33,580 $44,349 $43,972

AVG STATE FEES $453 $517 $481 $520 $536

DEPRECIATION $23,276 $24,016 $19,055 $26,435 $22,842

FINANCING $3555 $3823 $3084 $4071 $4037

INSURANCE $7207 $7490 $6380 $8222 $7118

FUEL $11,178 $10,821 $11,178 $11,376 $10,284

MAINTANENCE $1943 $2659 $1740 $2277 $1900

REPAIRS $465 $614 $729 $168 $604

5-YEAR COST

OF OWNERSHIP $48,076 $49,940 $42,646 $53,069 $47,321

Chevrolet Impala LTZ Kia CadenzaChrysler 300S Ford Taurus SEL

Toyota Avalon Limited

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.C H O O S E Y O U R C A R W I S E LY

Cost of OwnershipTo give you a better picture of what your

new car purchase might cost in the long run,

weve asked IntelliChoice, our partner in the

Motor Trend Automotive Group, to provide

five-year cost of ownership data for our

consumer-focused Big Tests. IntelliChoice

is a recognized leader in providing data

on average depreciation, fuel cost, fees,

insurance, financing, maintenance and

repairs, and more for every car on the market.

And if youre not ready

to buy one of the cars

in this comparison

today, IntelliChoice

also provides data on used and Certified

Pre-Owned cars, so you can buy a used model

in a few years time with confidence.

Our low-cost leader in this comparison is

clearly the Ford Taurus, but that doesnt tell

the whole story, because of the Taurus low

purchase price. The Toyota Avalon featured the

lowest depreciation by percentage of purchase

price (52 percent) while also boasting the

lowest fuel cost along with the second-lowest

maintenance and insurance totals.

ConclusionWith gas tanks hovering near empty and

engines ticking softly as they cooled, we

wrapped up our drive loops and sat down to a

seafood-fueled debate over which pretender

to the luxury car throne made the most

convincing argument. We talked about how

the Chrysler had the most street presence

of the pack and how frugal the Taurus price

point was, even if it struggled to keep up. We

agreed that the Impala represented a huge

comeback for an even bigger nameplate and

probably has one of the best-looking front ends

this side of a Camaro.

We discussed the Avalons stylized interior

and its huge efficiency advantage over the rest

of the pack, and expressed disappointment

that its ride and interior isolation had

diminished from the previous car. Then we

talked about how Kia had managed to build

a car utilizing roughly the same engine and

platform as its upscale brother, Hyundai, and

somehow managed to do a better job. While

the Kia wasnt the best in every category, it was

strong in those that make the most difference:

ride comfort, interior space, and fuel economy.

It has a features list that could rival an $80K

BMWs and value that places it above its

full-size brethren. For those reasons, the Kia

Cadenza is our full-size champ. Q

NEW CHAMP Todays full-size competition is strong, but in the end the Kia Cadenza stands a bit above the rest because of its strong value and performance, roomy interior, and solid efficiency.

1ST PLACE KIA CADENZAA huge value proposition, solid fuel

efficiency, near-luxury ride, and pretty

sheetmetal make the Kia our near

unanimous choice for first place.

2ND PLACE CHEVROLET IMPALADespite a few flaws, the Impala offers a well-

thought-out package at a reasonable cost.

A solid step forward for the American sedan.

3RD PLACE TOYOTA AVALONEfficient and generous in interior room and

features, the Avalon is let down by a bone-

shaking ride and an uninspiring drive.

4TH PLACE CHRYSLER 300SA pretty face goes a long way, but it cant argue

with reality. Poor fuel economy and interior

room relegate the good-looking Chrysler to

fourth.

5TH PLACE FORD TAURUSThe Taurus needs more than a refresh to

compete in this segment. If youre on a budget,

shop for something in the midsize category.


Chevrolet Impala LTZ Chrysler 300S Ford Taurus SEL

2013 MAZDA3 (I

Kia Cadenza Toyota Avalon Limited

DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, RWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD

ENGINE TYPE 60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads

60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads




VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl

DISPLACEMENT 217.5 cu in/3564 cc 219.9 cu in/3604 cc 213.4 cu in/3497 cc 203.9 cu in/3342 cc 210.9 cu in/3456 cc

COMPRESSION RATIO 11.5:1 10.2:1 10.8:1 11.5:1 10.8:1

POWER (SAE NET) 305 hp @ 6800 rpm* 300 hp @ 6350 rpm 288 hp @ 6500 rpm 293 hp @ 6400 rpm 268 hp @ 6200 rpm

TORQUE (SAE NET) 264 lb- @ 5300 rpm* 264 lb- @ 4800 rpm 254 lb- @ 4000 rpm 255 lb- @ 5200 rpm 248 lb- @ 4700 rpm

REDLINE N/A 6400 rpm 6500 rpm 6700 rpm 6250 rpm

WEIGHT TO POWER 12.6 lb/hp 13.7 lb/hp 13.8 lb/hp 12.8 lb/hp 13.3 lb/hp

TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic 8-speed automatic 6-speed automatic 6-speed automatic 6-speed automatic

AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 2.77:1/2.05:1 2.65:1/1.78:1 3.16:1/2.34:1 3.04:1/2.35:1 3.24:1/1.97:1

SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar

Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar



Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar

POWER STEERING TYPE Rack-assist electric Electro-hydraulic Rack-assist electric Column-assist electric Column-assist electric

STEERING RATIO 15.2:1 15.5:1 15.0:1 14.3:1 14.8:1

TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.6 2.5 2.6 3.0 2.8

BRAKES, F;R 12.6-in vented disc; 12.4-in disc, ABS





WHEELS, F;R 8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum 8.0 x 20-in, cast aluminum 8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum 8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum

TIRES, F;R 245/45R19 98V M+S Goodyear Eagle RS-A

245/45R20 99V M+S Firestone Firehawk GT

255/45R19 100V M+S Michelin Primacy MXM4

245/40R19 94V M+S Hankook Optimo H426

225/45R18 91V M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400

CONSUMER INFO

BASE PRICE $34,555 $33,990 $29,695 $35,900 $40,445

PRICE AS TESTED $39,505 $40,625 $33,490 $41,900 $42,719

STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes

AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee

Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee

Dual front, front side, f/r curtain

Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain

Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee

BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi

POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 10 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi

ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/100,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 2 yrs/25,000 mi

FUEL CAPACITY 18.5 gal 19.1 gal 19.0 gal 18.5 gal 17.0 gal

EPA CITY/HWY ECON 19/29 mpg 19/31 mpg 19/29 mpg 19/28 mpg 21/31 mpg

ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 160/112 kW-hrs/100 mi 177/109 kW-hrs/100 mi 160/112 kW-hrs/100 mi 177/120 kW-hrs/100 mi 160/109 kW-hrs/100 mi

CO2 EMISSIONS 0.80 lb/mi 0.84 lb/mi 0.80 lb/mi 0.87 lb/mi 0.79 lb/mi

MT FUEL ECONOMY 19.0 mpg 16.1 mpg 18.1 mpg 18.9 mpg 22.1 mpg

RECOMMENDED FUEL

*SAE certiedUnleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded regular


SPACE CASE The second and third rows provide generous legroom, while folding the rear seats at produces 80 cubic feet of cargo area.

Breaking up doesnt have to be

hard to do. All it takes is a new,

better partner, and Hyundai seems

to have found one in the long-

wheelbase Santa Fe, which replaces the Vera-

cruz as Hyundais big family crossover. Hyundai

stretched its all-new Santa Fe 8.5 inches and

lengthened its wheelbase by 3.9, creating a

family cruiser with 144.9 cubic feet of passenger

spacenearly 37 cubic feet more than the five-

passenger Santa Fe Sport.

Powered by Hyundais direct-injection,

3.3-liter V-6 Lambda II engine, the new Santa

Fe has plenty of ponies under its sculpted

hood. The engine produces 290 hp and 252

lb-ft of torque, and the body weighs at least

300 pounds less than the portly Veracruz. The

six-speed automatic smoothly clicks through

its gears, though from time to time it hesitated

under aggressive driving.

The MacPherson strut front and multilink

rear suspension provides a solid, well-planted

and quiet ride on highway and country roads.

In the city, drivers may want to take advantage

of the three steering modes that range from

Comfort to Sport, and come with the electric

power steering system. (The steering becomes

2014 Hyundai Santa Fe

progressively tighter as you click through

the modes.)

The interior offers a slew of luxury appoint-

ments for all passengers, from heated seats for

the first two rows to the 115-volt outlet in the

second row. Parents can also stay connected

to their Santa Fe via the BlueLink app, which

allows for everything from vehicle diagnos-

tics to setting up geofences to monitor the

vehicles whereabouts.

The second row, which comes with either

two captains chairs or a 40/20/40 split bench,

provides 41.1 inches of legroom, nearly

matching the spacious front row. The third row

has 31.5 inches of legroom. Both rows can fold

relatively flat, creating 80 cubic feet of storage

space. The versatility makes the Santa Fe a well-

proportioned jack of all trades.

If the Veracruz was Hyundais starter wife, the

new Santa Fe is the keeper. Q Scott Burgess

SPECS Base Price $29,195-$35,695 Vehicle Layout Front-engine, FWD/AWD, 6- or 7-pass, 4-door SUVEngine 3.3L/290-hp/252-lb-ft DOHC 24-valve V-6 Transmission 6-speed automaticCurb Weight 3950-4100 lb (mfr) Wheelbase 110.2 in L x W x H 193.1 x 74.2 x 66.5 In0-60 mph 6.0-6.6 sec (MT est) EPA City/Hwy Fuel Econ 18/24-25 mpg Energy Cons, City/Hwy 187/135-140 kW-hrs/100 mi CO2 Emissions 0.94-0.96 lb/mi On Sale in U.S. Currently

Newcomer


NEW TRUCK PROVES CHARACTER STARTS FROM WITHINWords Scott Burgess


TOUGH STUFF The all-new 2014

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 arrives with

three new engines, an impressive new interior, and lots of

new features that any pickup owner will

appreciate at work or at play.

2014 Chevrolet Silverado | FIRST DRIVE


The English language is as

confusing as it is beautiful. There

are different versions: American

English, British English, Austra-

lian English. Each is spoken and written with

specific quirks and foibles.

The Chevrolet Silverado has become the

newest homonym and homograph in the

American lexicon. Its spelled the same,

pronounced the same, and in many waysw

looks the same, but dont mistake the 2013

model for the all-new 2014 pickup. Theyre

as different as nouns and verbs.

The new Silverado is more comfortable,

more efficient, and more powerful. So

powerful, in fact, it can metaphorically haul

that elephant out of the room. (Max towing

for the full-size Silverado is 12,000 pounds,

depending upon its configuration.)

Yes, the new Silverado looks a lot like the

old Silverado. Oh, there were changes. The

stacked headlamps are fancier (projector-

beam headlights are available), the grille

is meatier, and the double-domed hood is

made of aluminum. There are other exterior

changes, such as a body-color rear bumper

and the ingenious step tucked into each

corner of the bumper that allows you to

easily step into the bed.

While there was no extreme makeover

during which the Silverado debuted onstage

as the crowd screamed in delight, theres

plenty to get excited about. First are the trio

of new aluminum-block EcoTec3 engines,

including a 4.3-liter V-6 and two V-8s, the

next iteration of the small-block 5.3-liter V-8

and the 6.2-liter V-8. During my day of driv-

ing crew cab Silverados, I tested the V-6 and

5.3-liter V-8 models near San Antonio, Texas.

Both feature General Motors' cylinder deacti-

vation system, dubbed Active Fuel Manage-

ment, which shuts off half of the V-8 engines

cylinders and two cylinders on the V-6 when

less power is needed. All engines are mated to

GMs six-speed automatic, which is impecca-

bly calibrated for smooth acceleration.

The 4.3-liter engine generates 285 hp

and 305 lb-ft of torque. While towing a

5500-pound camper using a trailer hitch,

the Silverado never hesitated. It acceler-

ated quickly and the integrated trailer sway

controls, which use the trucks anti-lock

brakes, helped steady the trailer down the

windy Texas roads. The V-6 has a maximum

towing rating of 7500 pounds.

The 5.3-liter engine lives up to its small-

block heritage. Creating 355 hp and 383 lb-ft

of torque, the 5.3-liter comes with a growl that

will make any musclecar fan smile. It will also

deliver 16/23 mpg in city/highway driving. A

range-topping 6.2 liter, good for an estimated

420 hp, 450 lb-ft, and 12,000 pounds of

towing, was unavailable to test.

Suspension upgrades, a slightly wider

track, wider tires, and electric power-assisted

rack-and-pinion steering improve both ride

quality and handling performance. Perhaps

most impressive is how quietly the new

Silverado rides. Even with the windows

down, you hardly hear the engine. Off-road,

FOOTHOLD The Silverados Corner Step Bumper makes it easy to climb into the bed from either rear corner. Its a simple and elegant solution that requires no assembly.

It's simple and well-laid-out, with lots of luxe touches.

FIRST DRIVE | 2014 Chevrolet Silverado


* SAE certied, 297 hp/330 lb

Documents

Motor Trend New Car Buyer 27s Guide 2014