![\"2003](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/09c9f606-d586-48ea-8206-38f6c6c30655.png\" "\\"2003")
<\/p>\nFrom the October 2003 issue of Car and Driver.<\/p>\n
Let’s face it: The following is a bit of a scam. Although it’s billed as yet another of our famed com\u00adparison tests, the underlying reason for the exercise was to find out exactly how the new and much-touted Cadillac XLR fits into the very fast league of $60,000-to\u00ad-$80,000 fliptops currently prowling the parking lots of the nation’s country clubs. This is a particularly competitive group: The stunning Mercedes-Benz SL500 hit our shores as an all-new car for ’03, and the aging but classic Jaguar XK8 benefits from a recent upgrade to a six-\u00adspeed gearbox and an up-sized, more pow\u00aderful V-8. The plump but pristine Lexus SC430 remains a popular choice, and it’s thousands of dollars less than its competi\u00adtors. Finally, the classic Porsche 911 Carrera 4 cabriolet, equipped with the Tip\u00adtronic transmission, is another excellent option for those who seek premium top down grand touring for two. <\/p>\n
But as the new kid on the block, it was the Caddy that intrigued us. The ’04 XLR\u2014part of a campaign by Cadillac to rename its vehicles with a garble of consonants in place of its traditional and well-known DeVilles, Sevilles, Eldorados, and Fleetwoods that have not dominated the domestic luxury-car market since 1998\u2014has been in the planning stage for four years. It was first hinted at when the two-door Evoq hit the show circuit in 1999 and had been expected to play a starring role in elevating GM’s premium brand into the elite echelons of the business. <\/p>\n
The new Cadillac would ride on the Corvette C6 platform and be powered by the much-regarded 320-hp Northstar DOHC V-8 with a new five-speed auto\u00admatic, and much was expected of it. That, coupled with an edgy, all-plastic body, a modern folding hardtop, and a price com\u00adpetitive with its rivals, produced high levels of curiosity among the C\/D staffers who hauled south from Ann Arbor toward our favored stomping grounds in southern Ohio’s Hocking Hills.<\/p>\n
More Convertible Comparos From the Archive<\/p>\n
Could a Caddy play in this league? The division’s last foray into this segment with the Allant\u00e9 ended in humiliation and a much-deserved banishment to the gray pages of Hemmings Motor News. But this time management seemed serious beyond the cosmetic pig perfuming so common in Detroit. The XLR, at least on paper, appeared to be a contender in a pack dom\u00adinated by the premier marques of Mer\u00adcedes-Benz, Porsche, Lexus, and Jaguar with the kind of status punch identified by Thorstein Veblen in his 1899 classic, The Theory of the Leisure Class. If any group were to analyze the Cadillac XLR and four other serious fliptops in this context, who better than a classy group from the classiest of car mags?<\/p>\n
5th Place: Jaguar XK8<\/p>\n
It was generally agreed among the Ohio contingent that the Jaguar is a fine 8\/10ths automobile\u2014that is, a pleasant driver at brisk speeds but less of a contender when serious motoring is required. Although its 294-hp, 4.2-liter V-8 and thoroughly modern six-speed automatic deliver com\u00adpetitive performance, the XK8’s size, weight, and age work against it when the going gets brisk.<\/p>\n
At 3991 pounds, the Jaguar was the second heaviest in the group. It was also nearly 10 inches longer than any of the others. Moreover, this XK8 was introduced for 1997, and its platform dates back to the mid-’70s XJ-S. As a result, hard driving and bumpy pavement elicit some ungainly cowl shake. And there’s a gen\u00aderal softness to the Jag’s responses that doesn’t encourage hard charging. <\/p>\n
The Jag has an old-fashioned convert\u00adible top. Although it opens and closes quickly with the touch of a button, the top requires the driver to get out and secure a boot in place. Some might like the classic look that comes with this design, but most of us would rather avoid the choreography, simple as it is. Still, there’s an advantage to this archaic layout: The top does not invade luggage space, which is undimin\u00adished when the top goes down.<\/p>\n
HIGHS: Timeless, svelte styling; silky ride; a general sense of Edwardian elegance.
LOWS: Structural shakes in the bumpy stuff, vintage-’50s top-down stowage, the always unpleasant J-gate shifter.
VERDICT: Still appealing, despite being the oldest car in the group.<\/p>\n
We all appreciated the old-world rich\u00adness of the XK8’s cockpit. The classic instrument layout and the full swath of wood from door to door give real meaning to the word dashboard. Most of us found the array of buttons and switches control\u00adling the sound and climate-control systems to be confusing, and a few of us were too close to the windshield header once we established a comfortable driving position. Jaguar’s traditional J-gate shifter didn’t win any new adherents despite its being coupled to the excellent six-speed auto\u00admatic, which delivers good fuel economy in this class. <\/p>\n
For those who value the flair of its styling and classic trim above all else, the XK8 is an excellent choice. However, if you are willing to embrace more contem\u00adporary styling, the newer choices offer some clear functional advantages. <\/p>\n
4th Place: Lexus SC430 <\/p>\n
The visual impact of the SC430 addles the brain. It appears to be short and stubby\u2014a latter-day iteration of a ’50s Porsche Speedster\u2014but it is in fact 0.1 inch longer than the Cadillac and less than an inch shorter than the Mercedes. Its puffy contours (especially in the bright red of our test car) make it seem bulbous in compar\u00adison with the more svelte competition we’ve assembled here. <\/p>\n
Thanks to its silent engine, luxuriously soft yet well-controlled ride, minimal wind noise, and superb sound system, the Lexus creates the impression that it is a nonau\u00adtomobile, a moving capsule unrelated to normal vehicular sensory impressions. Said one tester, “Lexus has created a car intended to make you forget it’s a car\u2014as opposed to Porsche, which never ever lets you forget.”<\/p>\n
In addition to its debatable exterior contours, the Lexus instrument panel was the subject of controversy. It features wood paneling of a yellowish hue that, although described as bird’s-eye maple, more resembles highly polished bamboo that contrasts hysterically with expanses of cream-colored leather, black plastic, and aluminum trim (burled walnut is an option). One thinks of the wonderful car\u00adtoon birds Heckle and Jeckle. At the same time, the SC430 interior was beautifully assembled with seamless fits and perfect quality.<\/p>\n
HIGHS: Rolex-level fit and finish, unmatched silence at all speeds.
LOWS: Weird, pumpkin-seed styling; skimpy trunk with top down; dashboard wood treatment verges on the lurid.
VERDICT: Another Lexus demonstration of automotive perfection based on a sterile driving experience.<\/p>\n
Although the SC430’s rear seat doesn’t provide sufficient legroom even for tod\u00addlers, the space is a useful supplement to the trunk, which is mostly nonexistent when you fold the metal roof. <\/p>\n
With the best price of the bunch at $63,775 fully equipped, the Lexus boasts high value typical of the marque, particu\u00adlarly when you factor in its long-range comfort and general feel of quality. On a beautiful day with the sun streaming into the cockpit, the Lexus is wonderfully com\u00adfortable and cozy. But when it comes to excitement, both dynamic and visual, we found the SC430 to be a bit of a laggard compared with the four others.<\/p>\n
3rd Place: Cadillac XLR <\/p>\n
The razor-edge bodywork with the cowcatcher grille made for interesting reactions. Some loved the XLR’s in-your\u00ad-face originality, others saw a hunky lack of grace. Either way, the Caddy gets it done on the road, both in high-speed inter\u00adstate cruising and while working on back\u00adroad Grand Prix fantasies\u2014provided sound-system listening is not desired. <\/p>\n
We all noted the wind turbulence in the Cadillac’s open cockpit\u2014with the win\u00addows up or down\u2014and particularly when contrasted with the other cars’ abilities to deal with the problems of wind in top\u00ad-down mode. Another weakness is a lack of storage space in the cockpit behind the seats. The XLR is the only car in the group in which two occupants must pop the trunk to stow their briefcases. Although the trunk’s 12 cubic feet is the largest in the group, that volume is reduced by two-\u00adthirds when the hardtop comes looking for space. An added irritation comes in the form of a luggage soaking if the top is raised during a sudden rainstorm. All water on the rear decklid is dumped into the trunk\u2014begging the question, did anyone in the Cadillac engineering department actually attempt such a maneuver during the 48 months of development? <\/p>\n
We came to think of the XLR as a sort of Corvette in a double-breasted blazer. It is a fine touring car with strong sporting instincts. Said one staffer: “I expect the XLR to sell primarily on its looks and on the fact that it’s a Cadillac. Something tells me it won’t get all that much cross shop\u00adping with some of the others. But if you’re a ‘Buy American’ type of rich guy, of which there are way more than Cadillac will have capacity for, this thing will look pretty attractive.” <\/p>\n
Everyone appreciated the XLR’s well\u00ad-controlled ride and secure, responsive handling, although several of us com\u00adplained about its unnaturally high steering effort. With 320 ponies, the most in the test, and a curb weight of 3707\u2014just 93 more than the Porsche, lightest in the group\u2014the XLR was plenty quick. It was also smooth, although when flogged, the Northstar V-8 wasn’t as silky and refined as its competitors. <\/p>\n
We were split on the XLR’s interior. Some found a sufficient level of luxury and interest; others thought it wouldn’t draw any admiring shock and awe from a new passenger. It’s not an interior that shouts of luxury\u2014with the top down, for example, the inventory-bin visors stick out like big ears\u2014and there were complaints about some of the fit and finish (the expensive embossed aluminum used on the center console didn’t strike us as particu\u00adlarly rich or special). <\/p>\n
HIGHS: Vivid styling, solid quality, excellent all-around performance.
LOWS: Minimal luggage space with the top down, weird steering effort, wind buffeting in open-cockpit motoring.
VERDICT: The first solid American contender in the luxury-roadster class since forever.<\/p>\n
Still, if you love the unique look of the XLR, you will also find joy in the driving experience it provides. Judged overall, however, the XLR’s lack of top-down storage space and near misses in interior finish and overall refinement caused it to fall behind in this group. Although Cadillac didn’t get it spot on across the board, the XLR is a solid contender in this most competitive class. That’s a victory for GM’s luxury division and an important step on the division’s road to recovery. <\/p>\n
2nd Place: Porsche 911 Carrera 4 Cabriolet <\/p>\n
Wait a minute, you ask, what’s a Porsche doing in this test with a sticker price about three grand short of a hundred large and over $33,000 more expensive than the Lexus? Let us offer an explanation: <\/p>\n
We requested a Porsche 911 Carrera cabriolet equipped with the optional Tiptronic five-speed automatic transmission to place it on an equal footing with the four other contestants. Theoretically, such a car can be had for a base price of $82,585, within six grand of the price of the XLR that was the linchpin of this comparison. Unfortunately, the only 911 Tiptronic cabrio in Porsche’s press fleet was a four\u00ad-wheel-drive model that starts at nearly 85 large. Tack on several options priced as only the Swabians can, and the window sticker tells the rest. Suffice it to say that under the conditions of the test, the 911’s four-wheel drive offered no advantage and only handicapped the Porsche in the rat\u00adings based on its eye-watering price tag. <\/p>\n
That said, the 911 was the hands-down hot performer of the bunch, setting the benchmark in nearly every acceleration test and topping out at 166 mph, thanks in part to its relatively feathery\u2014in this group\u2014poundage of 3614, a whopping 606 pounds lighter than the SL500. This lack of bulk, coupled with Porsche’s Sta\u00adbility Management System that controls individual wheel braking and power applications, produced a wonderfully agile automobile. One tester’s notes neatly summed up the appeal: ‘The Porsche’s brakes are great, as usual. Steering feel is excellent. Transmission is the best of the bunch with full manual control. A very good driver’s tool.” <\/p>\n
Negative comments involved the rela\u00adtive starkness of the interior\u2014it hasn’t changed in years\u2014when compared with the others. “The Porsche is a much dif\u00adferent car\u2014faster, less comfortable, less refined than the others. As much as I enjoy the precise steering and brakes and the grumbling noises in the engine bay, I don’t think I’d put up with the stiff ride and absence of a hardtop,” noted one staffer. <\/p>\n
Despite the Porsche’s somewhat harsh manners, it is actually surprisingly user-\u00adfriendly. It’s equipped with a fabric top, but the mechanism does include an inte\u00adgral hard boot, so top operation is a simple and rapid one-button action. And although the trunk has only five cubic feet of space, the 911’s rear seat provides valuable sup\u00adplemental room as well as sufficient space to transport a pair of 10-year-olds. <\/p>\n
HIGHS: Fast and furious performance, coupled with that intangible aura of the Porsche name.
LOWS: Military-issue interior, wallet-crushing price.
VERDICT: Regardless of the price, it provides a unique and endlessly joyful driving experience.<\/p>\n
As a result, when the balloting was completed, the Porsche scored second based on its unique blend of general sporti\u00adness, overall performance, and genuine practicality. Although it surely lacks the sumptuous comfort levels of the Lexus or Mercedes-Benz, or the outr\u00e9 styling of the Cadillac, or the old-world elegance of the Jaguar, the raw, feisty eagerness of the Porsche in the hills and hummocks of southern Ohio drew strong support from our drivers. <\/p>\n
1st Place: Mercedes-Benz SLS00 <\/p>\n
Yes, it’s expensive, the second priciest of the bunch, and yes, it’s the heaviest, and it has a folding top with more complexity and moving parts than a roomful of robots. But a brisk drive down a country road on a sunny day in this particular Silberpfeil can define automotive elegance. <\/p>\n
It was agreed that the SL led the field in competence on the open interstates and in the more demanding environs of the two-lanes. Its Active Body Control sus\u00adpension kept the 4220-pound machine within controllable limits at all times, and the driving environment with the hardtop up or down offered a pleasant combination of comfort and tactile connection with the driving experience. <\/p>\n
Two of the five testers wished for more seat-bottom elevation to aid in thigh support, and complaints were registered\u2014as always\u2014about the German fascination with overwrought complexity on basic radio, GPS, and air-conditioning controls. <\/p>\n
The sophisticated hardtop on the Mer\u00adcedes not only raises and lowers almost twice as fast as the one on the Cadillac\u00ad\u2014it can be done at a stoplight\u2014but also ingeniously folds into a smaller package, stealing far less trunk room. Moreover, the SL provides a useful package shelf behind the seats. As a result, despite being only 0.8 inch longer than the Cadillac, the Mer\u00adcedes provides twice as much luggage space with the top down. <\/p>\n
Every detail on the SL is beautifully executed. A push of a button in the trunk slightly raises the folded top to provide access to the eight cubic feet of luggage space beneath it. The sun visors slot neatly into the windshield frame when the top is down, unlike the protruding panels on the Jaguar and Cadillac. These are seemingly minor details perhaps, but when one plans to dump nearly 90 grand into a two-place roadster, the small stuff counts. <\/p>\n
The Merc’s rated 302 horsepower and two-ton-plus bulk produced the worst power-to-weight ratio of the bunch. But thanks to the largest engine with the highest peak torque at the lowest rpm, the SL was always responsive and delivered midpack performance. Although we are often mesmerized by blinding speed, the fact that the SL500 won this test by a wide margin affirms its broad-spectrum (and our) capabilities. <\/p>\n
To be sure, the car is an able performer compared with the competition, but pave\u00adment-ripping muscle is not the SL’s high card. Rather, its appeal lies in overall bal\u00adance and attention to detail within the context of its design mission; i.e., to transport two people and their luggage over long dis\u00adtances with speed, comfort, and elegance in all sorts of weather. And every one of us fell in love with its flamboyantly extrav\u00adagant styling. This is the car to drive when you want to arrive.<\/p>\n
HIGHS: Riveting styling, excellent quality, a delight to drive.
LOWS: Limited luggage space, poor instrument legibility, too-low seat bottoms.
VERDICT: If you have the bucks, this is your GT roadster.<\/p>\n
Noted one driver: “I can find only three faults. The brakes are tough to modulate and far too sensitive, the nav\/radio screen is unreadable with the top down, and the seat needs more thigh support. Otherwise, it’s fantastic.” Said another: ”This car feels the best engineered, the best screwed together. Impressive rigidity and a marvel of a top. Cockpit perfection in layout, reach, etc. I feel bolted into this car. The steering is excellent, the electro brakes feel rea\u00adsonably normal to me, and the engine note is superb. An odds-on favorite.” Another summed it all up: “I love this car.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Car and Driver<\/p>\n
![\"Specs](\"https:\/\/www.caranddriver.com\/_assets\/design-tokens\/caranddriver\/static\/icons\/specs-panel-title.ba7e501.svg?primary=%2523000\" "\\"Specs")
Specifications<\/p>\n
Specifications<\/p>\n
2004 Cadillac XLR
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible<\/p>\n
PRICE
\nBase\/As Tested: $76,200\/$76,200<\/p>\n
ENGINE
DOHC 32-valve V-8
\nDisplacement: 279 in3, 4565 cm3
\nPower: 320 hp @ 6400 rpm
\nTorque: 310 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm\u00a0<\/p>\n
TRANSMISSION
5-speed automatic<\/p>\n
CHASSIS
\nSuspension, F\/R: control arms\/control arms
\nBrakes, F\/R: vented disc\/vented disc
\nTires: Michelin Pilot HX MXM4
235\/50WR-18<\/p>\n
DIMENSIONS
\nWheelbase: 105.7 in
\nLength: 177.7 in
\nWidth: 72.3 in
Height: 50.4 in
\nPassenger Volume: 50 ft3
Trunk Volume, Top Up\/Down: 12\/4 ft3
Curb Weight: 3707 lb<\/p>\n
C\/D TEST RESULTS
\n60 mph: 5.8 sec
\n100 mph: 14.0 sec
\n1\/4-Mile: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph
130 mph: 28.8 sec
\nRolling Start, 5\u201360 mph: 6.4 sec
\nTop Gear, 30\u201350 mph: 3.1 sec
\nTop Gear, 50\u201370 mph: 3.1 sec
\nTop Speed (gov ltd): 157 mph
Braking, 70\u20130 mph: 182 ft
\nRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g<\/p>\n
Interior Sound
Idle: 47 dBA
\nFull Throttle: 78 dBA
\n70-mph Cruising: 71 dBA\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\/D FUEL ECONOMY
\nObserved: 17 mpg<\/p>\n
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City\/Highway: 17\/24 mpg<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
2004 Jaguar XK8
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible<\/p>\n
PRICE
\nBase\/As Tested: $74,995\/$74.995<\/p>\n
ENGINE
DOHC 32-valve V-8
\nDisplacement: 256 in3, 4196 cm3
\nPower: 294 hp @ 6000 rpm
\nTorque: 303 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm\u00a0<\/p>\n
TRANSMISSION
6-speed automatic<\/p>\n
CHASSIS
\nSuspension, F\/R: control arms\/control arms
\nBrakes, F\/R: vented disc\/vented disc
\nTires: Continental ContiSport Contact
\nF: 245\/45WR-18
R: 255\/45WR-18<\/p>\n
DIMENSIONS
\nWheelbase: 101.9 in
\nLength: 187.4 in
\nWidth: 72.0 in
Height: 50.0 in
\nPassenger Volume, F\/R: 51\/11 ft3
Trunk Volume, Top Up\/Down: 11\/11 ft3
Curb Weight: 3991 lb<\/p>\n
C\/D TEST RESULTS
\n60 mph: 6.2 sec
\n1\/4-Mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph
100 mph: 15.9 sec
130 mph: 31.9 sec
\nRolling Start, 5\u201360 mph: 6.8 sec
\nTop Gear, 30\u201350 mph: 3.4 sec
\nTop Gear, 50\u201370 mph: 4.1 sec
\nTop Speed: 151 mph
Braking, 70\u20130 mph: 170 ft
\nRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g<\/p>\n
Interior Sound
Idle: 49 dBA
\nFull Throttle: 76 dBA
\n70-mph Cruising: 71 dBA\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\/D FUEL ECONOMY
\nObserved: 19 mpg<\/p>\n
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City\/Highway: 18\/26 mpg<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
2004 Lexus SC430
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, \/2-door convertible<\/p>\n
PRICE
\nBase\/As Tested: $62,800\/$63,775<\/p>\n
ENGINE
DOHC 32-valve V-8
\nDisplacement: 261 in3, 4293 cm3
\nPower: 300 hp @ 5600 rpm
\nTorque: 325 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm\u00a0<\/p>\n
TRANSMISSION
5-speed automatic<\/p>\n
CHASSIS
\nSuspension, F\/R: control arms\/multilink
\nBrakes, F\/R: vented disc\/disc
\nTires: Bridgestone Potenza RE040
245\/40ZR-18<\/p>\n
DIMENSIONS
\nWheelbase: 103.1 in
\nLength: 177.8 in
\nWidth: 72.0 in
Height: 53.1 in
\nPassenger Volume, F\/R: 50\/25 ft3
Trunk Volume, Top Up\/Down: 9\/1 ft3
Curb Weight: 3893 lb<\/p>\n
C\/D TEST RESULTS
\n60 mph: 6.3 sec
\n1\/4-Mile: 14.8 sec @ 97 mph
100 mph: 15.8 sec
130 mph: 29.9 sec
\nRolling Start, 5\u201360 mph: 6.8 sec
\nTop Gear, 30\u201350 mph: 3.2 sec
\nTop Gear, 50\u201370 mph: 4.2 sec
\nTop Speed (gov ltd): 150 mph
Braking, 70\u20130 mph: 167 ft
\nRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g<\/p>\n
Interior Sound
Idle: 42 dBA
\nFull Throttle: 73 dBA
\n70-mph Cruising: 69 dBA\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\/D FUEL ECONOMY
\nObserved: 20 mpg<\/p>\n
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City\/Highway: 18\/23 mpg<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
2004 Mercedes-Benz SL500
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door convertible<\/p>\n
PRICE
\nBase\/As Tested: $88,010\/$88,910<\/p>\n
ENGINE
SOHC 24-valve V-8
\nDisplacement: 303 in3, 4966 cm3
\nPower: 302 hp @ 5600 rpm
\nTorque: 339 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm\u00a0<\/p>\n
TRANSMISSION
5-speed automatic<\/p>\n
CHASSIS
\nSuspension, F\/R: multilink\/multilink
\nBrakes, F\/R: vented disc\/vented disc
\nTires: Continental ContiSport Contact
255\/45WR-17<\/p>\n
DIMENSIONS
\nWheelbase: 100.8 in
\nLength: 178.5 in
\nWidth: 71.9 in
Height: 51.1 in
\nPassenger Volume: 51 ft3
Trunk Volume, Top Up\/Down: 11\/8 ft3
Curb Weight: 4220 lb<\/p>\n
C\/D TEST RESULTS
\n60 mph: 6.1 sec
\n1\/4-Mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph
100 mph: 15.1 sec
130 mph: 27.4 sec
\nRolling Start, 5\u201360 mph: 6.5 sec
\nTop Gear, 30\u201350 mph: 3.4 sec
\nTop Gear, 50\u201370 mph: 3.8 sec
\nTop Speed (gov ltd): 155 mph
Braking, 70\u20130 mph: 166 ft
\nRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g<\/p>\n
Interior Sound
Idle: 47 dBA
\nFull Throttle: 76 dBA
\n70-mph Cruising: 70 dBA\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\/D FUEL ECONOMY
\nObserved: 19 mpg<\/p>\n
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
\nCombined\/City\/Highway: 15\/22 mpg<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
2004 Porsche 911
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible<\/p>\n
PRICE
\nBase\/As Tested: $84,765\/$96,935<\/p>\n
ENGINE
DOHC 24-valve flat-6
\nDisplacement: 219 in3, 3596 cm3
\nPower: 315 hp @ 6800 rpm
\nTorque: 273 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm\u00a0<\/p>\n
TRANSMISSION
5-speed automatic<\/p>\n
CHASSIS
\nSuspension, F\/R: struts\/multilink
\nBrakes, F\/R: vented disc\/vented disc
\nTires: Michelin Pilot Sport
\nF: 225\/40ZR-18
R: 285\/30ZR-18<\/p>\n
DIMENSIONS
\nWheelbase: 92.6 in
\nLength: 174.4 in
\nWidth: 69.7 in
Height: 51.4 in
\nPassenger Volume, F\/R: 47\/16 ft3
Trunk Volume, Trunk Up\/Down: 5\/5 ft3
Curb Weight: 3614 lb<\/p>\n
C\/D TEST RESULTS
\n60 mph: 5.2 sec
\n100 mph: 12.7 sec
\n1\/4-Mile: 13.8 sec @ 104 mph
130 mph: 23.8 sec
\nRolling Start, 5\u201360 mph: 5.6 sec
\nTop Gear, 30\u201350 mph: 2.7 sec
\nTop Gear, 50\u201370 mph: 3.2 sec
\nTop Speed: 166 mph
Braking, 70\u20130 mph: 161 ft
\nRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.89 g<\/p>\n
Interior Sound
Idle: 56 dBA
\nFull Throttle: 87 dBA
\n70-mph Cruising: 78 dBA\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\/D FUEL ECONOMY
\nObserved: 18 mpg<\/p>\n
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City\/Highway: 17\/23 mpg\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"Headshot](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1f767803-5f46-44c4-9302-45ef0208180d_1591391600.file.png\" "\\"Headshot")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"From the October 2003 issue of Car and Driver. Let’s face it: The following is a bit of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":69040,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21181],"tags":[28527,22446,51399,15295,15298,21042,8406,51398,39588,42606],"class_list":["post-69039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-porsche","tag-collection-from-the-archive","tag-content-type-car-review","tag-contentid-123db456-7f56-4d8a-aaf9-31a0261cb51e","tag-displaytype-standard-article","tag-issyndicated-false","tag-locale-us","tag-porsche","tag-shorttitle-2004-luxury-convertibles-detroit-vs-everybody","tag-sponsored-false","tag-subsection-comparison-tests"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69039\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/69040"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/germany\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}