CAR CONTENDERS
Buick Regal
WE LIKE Impressive packaging, good-looking wagon WE DON’T LIKE Cheap interior, lackluster GS model
The Regal TourX wagon and GS hatchback feature some clever packaging, but not much else stood out, with one exception: that beautiful wagon. It’s hard not to ogle it, and most judges praised its attractive sheetmetal.
Both Regals offer spacious rear seats, and the GS (a sportback variant) can hold a surprising 60.7 cubic feet of cargo with the rear seats folded down and 31.5 with them up. That’s more than some crossovers. Packaging a car is not easy, and Buick did an excellent job. Too bad the rest of the interior is a disappointment.
Many interior components are plasticky, and style is nonexistent (save for the front seats). The blinker stalk, something drivers touch a lot, is one blatant example. Christian Seabaugh said it best: “These turn signals feel like they’re going to crack off and turn to dust in my hand.” We expect more at this price point. “If GM spent half as much time on interior materials and design as it does on engineering and exterior design, this could be the perfect package,” he added.
Some judges didn’t care for how the wagon handled on the winding road and complained about excess body roll and understeer.
We hoped for an engaging and confidence-inspiring GS model but were met with a semi-sporty driving experience. The front performance seats (heated, cooled, and massaging) are my favorite thing about the GS, which should tell you something.
The TourX and GS are both decent vehicles, but they fail to move the needle much, if at all.
Michael Cantu
Vehicle Layout TourX Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door wagon GS Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door hatchback Engine/Transmission TourX 2.0L turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4/8-speed automatic GS 3.6L DOHC 24-valve V-6/9-speed automatic Curb Weight (F/R Dist) TourX 3,751 lb (58/42%) GS 3,780 lb (58/42%) Wheelbase 111.4 in Length x Width x Height TourX 196.3 x 73.3 x 58.4 in GS 192.9 x 73.3 x 57.3 in Energy Consumption, City/Hwy TourX 160/116 kW-hr/100 miles GS 177/125 kW-hr/100 miles CO2 Emissions, Comb TourX 0.81 lb/mile GS 0.88 lb/mile
*SAE Certified
Both Regals offer spacious rear seats, and the GS can hold a surprising amount of cargo. The rest of the interior disappoints.
Ford Mustang
WE LIKE The sound, styling, and acceleration WE DON’T LIKE How it handles, price-value equation
Not many vehicles have the visceral feel of the Mustang GT.
Both versions we tested are powered by Ford’s 5.0, each tuned to deliver its own unique and vicious roar. Chris Theodore waxed nostalgic: “I swear the Bullitt’s exhaust note exactly matches the soundtrack from the movie.” In the convertible, you don’t need to put the top down to enjoy the V-8’s burble; it’s loud enough for all in the area to enjoy—or scorn.
Rowing the Bullitt’s stick shift at a normal pace is far more pleasurable than one would expect. And the convertible’s optional 10-speed automatic quickly snaps through the gears under full load.
The engine’s robust power output makes both models straight-line brutes, but things change when the road starts to twist. On the winding track, the Mustangs fell apart with poor body control and a rear end that has a mind of its own. “Both trims feel clumsy with heavy-handed nanny interventions when driven hard,” Angus MacKenzie said. “Switch everything off, and both are very hard to balance, very easy to spin.” Mark Rechtin had the convertible collapse into limp-home mode in less than two laps of the circuit.
Although the Bullitt is engineered as a back-road blaster, “the ride on
