Category: Motorcycle News

The Genesis GV70 has become one of my favorite luxury SUVs because it combines comfort, performance, utility and a little personality. That last ingredient matters. Modern crossovers are a dime a dozen, and too many have the emotional appeal of a vending machine. The GV70 gives you something to enjoy beyond discovering another USB port.

Then I drove the Maserati Grecale Trofeo, and my sensible comparison briefly went out the window.

With 523 horsepower, the Trofeo plays in a different performance league from the 375-horsepower GV70 3.5T. However, Maserati now offers less powerful V6 versions that bring the two vehicles closer together on paper. The new entry-level Grecale V6 and Modena V6 produce 385 horsepower, making them more relevant alternatives to a well-equipped Genesis. Maserati’s North American lineup now includes those two, the Trofeo and the fully electric Folgore.

Here’s the distinction: I drove the Trofeo, not the entry-level V6. My impressions describe that vehicle. The comparison with the less expensive Maserati is about specifications and positioning, rather than pretending I tested something I didn’t.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Powertrain and performance

The GV70 3.5T uses a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 producing 375 horsepower and 391 pound-feet of torque. An eight-speed automatic and standard all-wheel drive complete the package. It’s strong, smooth and entirely capable of reminding you that the groceries weren’t secured properly. Genesis lists the 2027 GV70 lineup from $49,350 before destination, although that starting price buys the four-cylinder version. The 3.5T occupies considerably more expensive territory.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Maserati’s lower-output 3.0-liter twin-turbo V6 produces 385 horsepower and 368 pound-feet. That gives it a modest horsepower advantage over the Genesis, while the GV70 counters with more torque. Maserati quotes a five-second run to 60 mph for the Modena V6. Its ZF eight-speed automatic works with an all-wheel-drive system that normally favors the rear axle and can send power forward when needed. The Modena also offers serious chassis equipment, including an electronic rear limited-slip differential and adaptive air suspension.

The Trofeo turns up the temperature with 523 horsepower and 457 pound-feet of torque. This is where the comparison stops being particularly fair to the Genesis. The Maserati’s Nettuno-derived V6 uses pre-chamber combustion technology with roots in Formula 1, although that doesn’t mean you’ve bought a Grand Prix engine with cupholders. It does mean there’s engineering behind the theatrics.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Exterior and interior design

The GV70 remains a handsome vehicle, and the Prestige Graphite treatment adds dark exterior accents, 21-inch wheels and red brake calipers. Inside, Nappa leather with suede inserts and carbon-fiber trim give it a more athletic presentation. I appreciate that Genesis can add visual attitude without making the vehicle look like it’s auditioning for a nightclub security position.

The Grecale makes a different statement. Recently, Maserati updated its exterior design ethos with a sharper, shark-like nose design that proliferates across the fleet. It’s stunning. It’s recognizably Italian without relying entirely on the trident badge, and the cabin surprised me.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Maserati hasn’t always been my benchmark for interior execution, but this particular vehicle felt carefully assembled, with excellent seats and attractive materials throughout. That’s a substantial improvement over merely asking buyers to forgive everything because the engine sounds magnificent.

Both provide comfortable accommodations for five, but their seating positions feel different. In the Maserati, I felt lower and more tucked into a sporting seat. The Genesis emphasizes a softer, more luxurious atmosphere. Neither approach is wrong. One encourages you to settle in; the other encourages you to investigate the drive-mode selector.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Screens, switches and accidental seat heating

Maserati combines a 12.3-inch central touchscreen with a lower comfort-control display. It looks attractive, but the arrangement occasionally turned my large, ape-like hands into unauthorized climate technicians. Reaching toward the transmission buttons, I sometimes brushed a nearby control and changed a setting. Nothing enhances a warm Malibu afternoon quite like accidentally activating your own seat heater.

The Genesis has the easier control layout in my experience. I still prefer a conventional gear lever to its rotary selector, but it works well enough. Likewise, Maserati’s piano-key-style transmission controls look elegant, yet I’d rather have something I can grab without checking whether I’ve also ordered additional lumbar support.

Then there’s the audio. The available Sonus faber system may be the finest automotive sound system I’ve experienced. Full stop. The upper specification offers as many as 21 speakers and 1,285 watts, and the result is extraordinary. I’d happily spend considerable time evaluating it with Rush, strictly in the interest of journalism.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Driving impressions

My Grecale drive took place around Malibu, where construction and reduced speed limits kept proceedings restrained. That limited any meaningful exploration of the Trofeo’s outright performance, but it still revealed a responsive, enjoyable vehicle. Steering weight, body control and throttle response contributed to a sense of occasion even at ordinary speeds.

What I can’t do is transfer those impressions wholesale to the entry-level Grecale. Different suspension specifications, tires and powertrain calibrations matter. Sharing a body and an engine family doesn’t make every version behave identically.

Related: Toyota vs. Honda vs. Chevy: Which Brand Comes Out Safest?

The Trofeo’s engine becomes considerably more vocal when encouraged, particularly in its sporting settings. The GV70 3.5T feels calmer and quieter, although calling it slow would be ridiculous. Both isolate occupants well, but the Maserati makes more of an event out of accelerating.

One frustration involved the Maserati’s audible speed warning. Finding the appropriate setting took longer than I wanted. A warning system has a purpose, but repeated electronic scolding can interrupt an otherwise pleasant drive. I already have people in my life qualified to question my decisions. Many.

Oh, and the turn signal makes a “bing – bong” noise that sounds like it’s from a 1980s video game.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Pricing and value

A well-equipped GV70 3.5T in the low-$70,000 range remains a compelling luxury proposition. The entry Grecale V6 starts around $80,000 including destination, while the Modena pushes into the mid-$80,000s. The Trofeo I drove occupied roughly $116,000 territory. These figures put the less powerful Maseratis closer to the Genesis, but “closer” still involves several thousand dollars and dipping into junior’s college funds.

Equipment matters, too. An entry Maserati isn’t automatically equivalent to a heavily equipped Genesis simply because their prices approach each other.

Related: Porsche Wants to Make Fake Manual Shifting Feel Real in EVs

Maserati provides a four-year/50,000-mile new-car limited warranty, including powertrain coverage, with roadside assistance during the warranty period. Remaining factory coverage can transfer to the next owner. It’s a respectable package, although the warranty doesn’t become more generous just because the engine sings in Italian.

Genesis makes the stronger offer: five years/60,000 miles of new-vehicle limited coverage and 10 years/100,000 miles of powertrain coverage for the original owner, whichever comes first. Subsequent owners generally receive powertrain protection only within the original five-year/60,000-mile period, unless separate coverage applies. For buyers keeping their SUV long term, Genesis wins this round.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Final thoughts

The GV70 remains my pick for balancing luxury, useful performance and value. It’s distinctive, enjoyable and impressively accommodating without requiring an exotic badge to justify itself.

The Grecale surprised me because it delivered more than an entertaining engine. Its cabin, seats and overall presentation made me reconsider a brand I’d become increasingly skeptical about. The Trofeo is an expensive indulgence, but the lower-output V6 models deserve their own test drive.

Genesis still makes the stronger argument to my sensible side. Maserati has apparently found the department responsible for my less sensible side.

Unfortunately, that department has excellent hearing and a weakness for Italian exhaust notes. Bottom line: the Grecale is my new favorite.

Related: The 2026 Volvo XC90 PHEV is a Commuting Star, But It’s Pricey

The 2026 GMC Sierra 1500 AT4 made fuel prices feel momentarily irrelevant, usually with a downshift beneath an overpass. I knew its 6.2-liter V8 was a serious indulgence, but that hardly stopped me from enjoying it. The 2026 Toyota Tundra TRD Off-Road took me longer to warm up to. Its cabin looked underwhelming for the money, while the truck surrounding it became increasingly agreeable with use. After a week in each, I could see good reasons to want either. Choosing between them requires careful math. The Sierra I drove had more equipment and cost considerably more, while Toyota offers several ways to pair its trail hardware with a nicer interior. How much of the GMC’s premium buys a better pickup, and how much buys a pickup I simply enjoyed more?

First, make sure the prices describe the trucks you want

AT4 is a trim; in the United States, TRD Off-Road is a package offered on several Tundra grades. My Canadian Toyota tester’s closest U.S. equivalent is an SR5 CrewMax 4WD with the 5.5-foot bed and TRD Off-Road Package. That SR5 starts at $51,510, and the $2,125 package brings the base-plus-package sum to $53,635. GMC advertises the AT4 at $68,300, but that includes the standard Duramax diesel. The V8 and active exhaust add $1,895, bringing that combination to about $70,195 before additional equipment.

All figures are in U.S. dollars and exclude destination, taxes, and other equipment. Totals are calculated examples, rather than U.S. prices for my Canadian test vehicles.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The roughly $16,600 difference between the V8 GMC and SR5 Toyota therefore includes a substantial jump in cabin equipment. Moving to a Limited, Toyota adds leather, ventilated front seats, and larger displays. Its TRD package also costs more—$3,580—so the full step from SR5 TRD to Limited TRD is $7,805, not just the $6,350 separating their base prices. That narrows the illustrated GMC’s premium to about $8,800. My Sierra’s additional packages, sunroof, cover, and other options would widen it again. The Limited is a closer comfort comparison, although my firsthand Toyota impressions come from the simpler truck.

The GMC makes a stronger first impression inside

The Sierra’s lifted stance, red recovery hooks, and 20-inch wheels give it plenty of presence. The Tundra’s Mudbath paint and 18-inch TRD wheels suit its more straightforward specification. Open the doors, though, and the price difference becomes much clearer. GMC adds perforated leather and Kalahari accents, plus heated and ventilated front seats, a 13.4-inch touchscreen, and a 12.3-inch instrument display. The SR5-based Toyota has cloth, an eight-inch touchscreen, and a 4.2-inch information display between analog gauges. The off-road package hasn’t transformed the rest of its interior.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

I found Toyota’s presentation a bit simpler, for better or worse, though both trucks retain useful physical controls and wireless Apple CarPlay. The Sierra’s richer surroundings don’t automatically settle the comfort question, either: its front cushions felt firm on longer drives, while the Toyota’s seats remained supportive. This is where I would revisit the Limited. Its larger displays and better upholstery bring the Toyota much closer to what I expect at this price. Buyers should also check individual options: my GMC’s head-up display and rear camera mirror were add-on technology, and its sliding rear window was additional equipment.

A Limited TRD also moves to 20-inch wheels, so it changes more than the dashboard and upholstery. I would drive that configuration before assuming it reproduces everything I liked about the 18-inch-wheel test truck. An appealing spec sheet still needs to suit you from behind the wheel. Toyota supplies an especially good alternative to that little sliding pane. The CrewMax’s entire rear window lowers electrically, opening the cabin in a way the GMC cannot match. I’d miss it after getting used to it. Both trucks offer plenty of passenger space, with rear legroom measuring 43.4 inches in the Sierra and 41.6 in the Tundra. GMC’s extra room is another worthwhile advantage if the rear bench regularly carries adults, rather than jackets and shopping bags.

The V8 earns its appeal on the road

Toyota extracts more torque from a much smaller displacement. Its 479 lb-ft exceeds the GMC’s 460, although the delivery feels different. A hard acceleration request in the Tundra brought a pause for kickdown and boost before the shove arrived; the Sierra’s response felt more immediate. The GMC also delivered the soundtrack I wanted from a big pickup, helped by my truck’s optional exhaust. I chose the Sierra because I enjoyed driving it so much more, even though the Toyota could do the job for less.

The Toyota countered with a comfortable ride and light steering that made it feel manageable around town. Its coil-spring rear suspension handled imperfect pavement well. The Sierra felt composed through the Sea-to-Sky’s bends, but its size was harder to ignore in tight parking spaces. More engine didn’t translate into a meaningful difference in economy in these tests. I recorded about 15 U.S. mpg in the GMC and 14.7 in the Toyota, though they were driven on different routes and under different conditions. Neither result made the Tundra’s smaller engine an obvious financial consolation. Those impressions only apply to the engines driven. AT4 buyers can keep the standard diesel, while higher Tundra grades offer the 437-hp, 583-lb-ft i-FORCE MAX hybrid.

Similar ambitions, different useful hardware

Both trucks have credible equipment beneath the styling. The AT4 combines a two-inch lift, Rancho monotube shocks, skid plates, and an automatic locking rear differential. Toyota’s TRD package supplies Bilstein shocks, a selectable rear locker, terrain settings, and Crawl Control. GMC’s Autotrac transfer case also offers an Auto setting to adapt to changing traction conditions. Toyota’s part-time four-wheel drive requires the driver to select the appropriate range, and its rear locker operates in low range. The GMC’s automatic 4WD mode is a useful everyday distinction, separate from its automatically locking rear differential.

I used the Toyota’s off-road systems at Stave Lake in British Columbia, while the GMC tackled moderate terrain in Squamish Valley. Both handled their respective outings, but the different routes leave me without a fair basis for naming an ultimate trail winner. More specialized options exist when the trails demand them. The AT4X adds Multimatic dampers and front and rear electronic lockers; Toyota’s TRD Pro uses FOX shocks and hybrid power. Their prices reflect different suspension and traction hardware. Neither badge is necessary to get a rugged truck with a comfortable cabin.

Around the back, GMC’s MultiPro tailgate gives the AT4 something Toyota cannot duplicate: several opening arrangements, including a load stop and a step into the bed. On a tall, lifted pickup, easier access matters. The Sierra’s short box offers 62.9 cubic feet, and Toyota uses an aluminum-reinforced composite bed. Towing gives the less expensive Toyota another argument. GMC advertises up to 9,000 pounds for the AT4, while Toyota rates the comparable short-bed CrewMax TRD Off-Road at roughly 11,000. The Sierra range’s 13,300-pound maximum belongs to a different configuration.

Bed volume and payload also answer different questions. A larger box gives you more space, while the payload rating limits the combined weight the truck can carry. A family, their luggage, and a trailer’s tongue weight can use that allowance before the bed looks particularly full. I did not tow with either. Buyers should check the specific truck’s trailer and payload ratings, allowing for occupants, cargo, and tongue weight; choosing an off-road version can change what remains available for work.

What I would actually pay for

Between the trucks I drove, I would choose the V8 Sierra. Its engine delivered enough enjoyment to make the indulgence feel worthwhile, and the cabin gave me more to appreciate between uses. I would be more selective about the options, though. The engine, useful cameras, and practical bed equipment deserve priority over additions that mainly dress up the truck.

The Toyota becomes much harder to dismiss when I price a Limited TRD Off-Road. Around $8,800 separates the illustrated configurations before destination and further options, with the Toyota now supplying several comforts missing from my SR5-based tester. That leaves a more honest buying decision. Someone content with cloth and smaller screens can save considerably more with the SR5, while someone who wants comfort alongside trail capability should compare the Limited before deciding whether the GMC is worth the stretch.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

When you think of a new off-roader, you likely think of the essentials: four-wheel drive, front, center, or rear-locking differentials. Quick sway bar disconnect. Torque figures. Low range. Hill descent control. Towing capacity. Maybe even low-speed cruise control, or overall rear cargo space. I’d venture that most enthusiasts don’t even consider the rear seats, rear passenger accommodations, or outward visibility. As the proud owner of a 2006 Jeep Wrangler, I can vouch for its capabilities, but also for its severe lack of passenger consideration. It was meant for wheeling, and wheeling only. 

The Ford Bronco, not unlike its predecessors, flipped that narrative right on its head. I took one look at the Wimbledon White beauty and knew I’d love it (I did), but I had very low expectations for how it’d work for my two car seat-bound daughters. I figured, like the 4Runner or the Wrangler, rear passengers were at the very bottom of the list of priorities. But I was wrong. While it’s obviously not as family-friendly as, say, a Ford Explorer or Expedition, I was pretty thrown by how many families were brought into the equation. Here’s what else stuck out to me. 

Related: Road Ethos Launches: The New Automotive Lifestyle Site You Should Read

Passenger and cargo space is more than reasonable

In the back, the four-door Bronco lends a respectable 36.3 inches of legroom. It’s identical to the third row in a Subaru Ascent or a Chevy Suburban, so it’s not the most accommodating, but it’s a lot more than the 2026 Toyota 4Runner (34 inches) and just a tad less than the four-door Jeep Wrangler (38.3 inches). With my daughters’ car seats, there was plenty of room.

Speaking of car seats, while the doors were ultra-lightweight (because, you know, they’re removable), they opened wide, making installing their seats delightfully easy. I had to do a bit of digging into the seat bight to find the lower LATCH points, but the top tether was simple—attached to the back of the outboard seats. Thanks to the tall hard top, I didn’t have to fold the seats to remove the headrests, either. 

Behind the rear seats, the hard top granted 35.6 cubic feet of space, which for my family and me was plenty. It would get a bit tight if we all had luggage or if I had to shove a double stroller back there, but for the everyday demands a family typically has—shopping trips, grocery runs, school drop offs/pick ups—it’s fine.

If you were using it for what it was intended to do, like camping and wheeling, that’s more than enough room for camping or recovery gear. If you need a bit more, the soft top somehow stretches the rear cargo space to 38.3 cubic feet. When the rear seats are folded, it expands to 77.6 cubic feet in the hardtop and 83 for the soft top.

Because it’s built for the open air, there are clever storage spaces. And waterproofing!

Since the doors and roof are removable, Ford had to think about things like window switches and additional storage places for things that would, you know, normally go in the door panel cubbies. So, the window switches were moved to the center console, like the switches on my 1996 Land Rover Discovery, and then additional storage was added to the center console for the rear passengers, and the strap system on the back of the rear seats is meant to keep gear secure when you take the top off, which could easily be used to keep items you don’t want to be thrown around while you’re driving, like bottles of wine, gallons of milk, or even valuables. 

There’s also something to be said about the hose-it-out, all-weather, easy-to-clean interior. Rubberized floors, all-weather floor mats, and water-resistant vinyl seats that were originally designed to repel mud, dirt, and water from ruining the interior also protect against spilled milk, juice, ice cream, and greasy French fries. Ask me how I know. Dog owners would love that, too. 

Related: Ford Wants $18,995 To Turn Your Bronco Into an Off-Road Beast

The onboard tech is easy, seamless, and responsive

Ford truly understands its audience when it formulated the Bronco, taking notes from Jeep and not making the Bronco too tech-forward. If anything, it has the perfect blend of physical touch points and screens. The off-road information display is in the driver’s screen behind the steering wheel, but it’s very easy to access, and equally as easy to interpret. The center screen is where you get your phone mirroring, settings, and more in-depth off-road information, like torque distribution, pitch and roll, or a tire placement predictor—which is always nice if you’re wheeling and don’t have a spotter. The central screen isn’t too big at 12 inches, and it fits perfectly in the dashboard so it doesn’t obstruct your view, either. It didn’t come with Blue Cruise, but the adaptive cruise control that comes with it is more than enough for me.

I particularly liked the driver display because it was simple. Every piece of information you needed was right there, in perfect view, and it wasn’t buried in flowery graphics or flashy colors. It was delightfully easygoing. You could change the feed to show whatever else you wanted, like tire pressure, mileage, a trailer/towing information display, and your driver assistance or cruise control functions. Both screens were responsive, fast, and easy to navigate. More than anything, other manufacturers who make off-roaders should be paying close attention.

As a parent, not having to worry about this took a lot of weight off of my shoulders. Not having to fret about changing the feed from cruise control to mileage, digging around to reset the trip meter, or returning to the main screen was very much appreciated when I had to calm a fussy toddler down. It doesn’t seem like a lot, but when you’re in the middle of a tantrum, the last thing you want to do is dig around a bunch of menus to accomplish something that should be simple.

It’s a lot quieter (and rides way nicer) than you’d expect

Granted, my tester had the removable hard top with the optional sound dampening material on the panels (a nearly $4k option) and the acoustic glass, so a lot less road noise was translated into the cabin than you’d experience in a four-door that didn’t have those add-ons. And it wasn’t a soft-top, which are notoriously noisy, especially at highway speeds. On the choppy, uneven, pothole-ridden roads of the San Francisco Bay Area, I was very shocked at how smooth and quiet it was for an off-roader. Because mine was fitted with the $6,000 Sasquatch package, it sat on 35” all-terrain tires with 17” wheels with a factory lift, making it a giant box with lots of space between the car’s underside and the road, giving way to a lot of noise. 

But it was unexpectedly quiet. In fact, my kids fell asleep every time they rode in it, and they’re incredibly hard to knock out. So, if anything, I’m here to tell you that paying extra for the sound dampening and acoustic glass is definitely worth the investment, especially if you’re planning on driving it often. Not even the Toyota 4Runner or Wrangler Rubicon was that quiet. And I know loud—my 2006 Jeep Wrangler has a soft top, a four-inch lift, and 35-inch tires. Nothing is quite as loud.

Related: I Took My 2006 Jeep Wrangler on a 12-Hour Drive. Now I Know Why People Trailer Their Rigs

My kids were the Ford Bronco’s biggest little fans

I should have seen this coming, but my four- and three-year-old daughters adored it. My oldest even nicknamed it “The Bronc.” She adored crawling in and out of it, having an excuse to climb on the running boards, grab onto all the handles, and how high she sat above the road. Both of my girls loved having tall, large windows to see out of, and the fact that the rear window switches were on the center console (which, unfortunately, they could reach with their feet…). It was fun and different for them, without sacrificing comfort by too much. They still had rear-facing A/C vents, older passengers would enjoy USB-C charging ports, and a very plush seat cushion. 

My youngest daughter said the widened fender flares, tall tires, and all the 60th anniversary badges made it look like one of her Hot Wheels toys, and I agree. It looks like something that belongs on a collector’s shelf, but that you can drive and fully enjoy. When it was time to hand the keys back to the press fleet driver, they were both very upset to see it go.

Final thoughts: it’ll work, but there’s better out there

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, but while the Ford Bronco technically checks every box as far as passenger space, cargo space, comfort, and convenience features, and mileage wasn’t even that terrible at 20.5 MPG on average with the optional 2.3-liter twin-turbo V6—it was built as an off-roader first and a family-friendly SUV second. It’ll move the kids to and fro, but it’s a huge waste of its purpose-built capabilities. Unless, of course, you’re planning on actually taking it off-road a lot. Then it’s absolutely worth it.

If you’re browsing this specifically to trade in your Honda Pilot for one of these, I encourage you to check out the Ford Explorer Tremor or Honda Passport TrailSport.

The appeal of a midsize pickup is easy to understand if you’ve ever tried to park a full-size truck in an underground lot. You want a useful bed and enough muscle for what you tow, without feeling like every little errand requires a spotter. Choosing the right one gets even more complicated when you consider bigger engines, better-equipped cabins, and beefier off-road suspensions built for weekends you haven’t yet planned.

The 2026 Ford Ranger and Chevrolet Colorado give buyers plenty of room to make those decisions. I got to know them through a 2.7-liter V6 Ranger Lariat on a roughly 620-mile trip between Vancouver, B.C., and Vancouver, Washington, and a week with a Colorado Trail Boss around coastal British Columbia. City traffic and gravel backroads gave their respective talents—and irritations—somewhere to expose themselves. Those two trucks are the lenses through which I experienced both lineups, but we’ll start with what the different trims buy you, then move on to the engines, cabins, beds, and towing capabilities. Along the way, my time behind each wheel helps answer the question that gets harder as the options accumulate: which features would I actually pay for, and which truck would I rather live with?

What Your Money Buys Across The Lineups

Ford offers XL, XLT, Lariat, and Raptor variants of the Ranger. Chevrolet advertises WT, Custom, LT, Trail Boss, Z71, and ZR2 versions, with the Bison package taking the ZR2 further into specialist territory.

Prices exclude destination, options, taxes, and dealer charges. Regular Ranger starting prices cover the 2.3-liter engine and rear-wheel drive; the 2.7-liter V6 requires optional 4×4. Colorado Trail Boss, Z71, and ZR2 have standard 4WD.

Chevrolet starts $1,150 lower, but neither brand wins the value argument at every price point. XLT and LT begin around $36,000; Lariat and Z71 start within $150 of each other. A ZR2 starts $6,965 below a Raptor, before Bison or other options, but offers far less potent performance. Ford lets buyers combine its regular trims with an FX4 package, whereas Chevrolet gives its off-road models more distinct identities. The handsome, lifted Trail Boss I drove occupies one branch of that range, though we suspect a Tremor-branded Ranger will eventually arrive to directly take on Chevy’s no-frills overland-ready version.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Two 2.7s, With Two Fewer Cylinders In The Chevy

Ford offers three engines in the Ranger: a 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder, a 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6, and a 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6. Chevrolet uses the same 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder throughout the Colorado range, paired with an eight-speed automatic. Every Ranger uses a 10-speed automatic transmission, and every Colorado uses an 8-speed.

Manufacturer-rated outputs; Raptor figures are based on premium fuel.[4–6]

That gives even the least expensive Colorado 40 more horsepower and 120 more lb-ft than a standard Ranger. Comparing the two 2.7-liter engines I drove, Ford has just five more horsepower, while Chevrolet has 30 more lb-ft, meaning that opting for six cylinders doesn’t automatically get you the strongest torque figure. In fact, Chevrolet’s four-cylinder makes the same torque as the Ranger Raptor, albeit with far less horsepower.

The Chevy backed that up with eager low-speed response, a well-matched eight-speed, and an entertaining turbo whistle. The Ranger pulled hard on boost, but lag and reluctant downshifts could disrupt smooth driving. Its transmission was also less agreeable in slower traffic, where it often seemed unsure of which gear to be in. My impressions favor the TurboMax for everyday driving. Ford’s more diverse engine lineup still deserves credit: you can retain the less expensive 2.3, upgrade to the 2.7 without buying a Raptor, or spend considerably more for the Raptor’s additional 95 horsepower over any Colorado. Still, the Colorado’s powertrain offers far more for less, generally speaking.

That engine equation is likely to change for 2027, however. As Autoblog reported on October 19, the Ranger’s XLT and Lariat are expected to replace their optional 2.7-liter V6 with “a bigger, more powerful 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6.” That likely means a detuned version of the Raptor’s engine, though that report didn’t confirm final output or pricing.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Cabin Changes As You Climb The Range

Both trucks offer crew cabs and five seats. Chevrolet installs an 11.3-inch touchscreen and 11-inch instrument display across its range. Ranger XL and XLT start with a 10-inch touchscreen and an 11-inch cluster; XLT adds a 12-inch touchscreen, while Lariat and Raptor get two 12-inch displays. My Lariat demonstrated the appeal of spending more on the Ford: heated ActiveX seats, B&O audio, proximity entry, and a useful power-sliding rear window. Opening that glass reduced buffeting with the side windows down. The seat, though durably appointed, wasn’t the most comfortable place to spend two separate six-hour straight driving stints, and its stiff headrests and limited arm support left my neck and shoulders aching. The Colorado’s Evotex seats suited my outings better, though apart from some multi-hour highway jaunts, I didn’t take the Colorado on as extensive a road trip as I did with the Ranger, so take that with a grain of salt.

My Trail Boss lacked proximity unlocking and a telescoping steering wheel, but crucially, those aren’t shortcomings across the Colorado lineup. LT, Z71, and ZR2 have both, but even a Ranger XL supplies a telescoping wheel. Chevrolet’s trim ladder therefore requires closer scrutiny before consideration. The less expensive LT has conveniences the Trail Boss omits. Z71 combines more cabin amenities with its outdoorsy presentation, and it also offers ventilated front seats, which ZR2 includes as standard; the upper Rangers’ front seats offer heating without ventilation. I preferred the Chevy’s cabin overall, but I’d choose its equipment carefully. Paying more doesn’t always mean keeping everything from the cheaper version.

Off-Road Hardware Changes The Character

The regular Rangers provide a familiar pickup layout, with rear leaf springs. The FX4 package adds off-road-tuned shocks, skid protection, and Trail Control without requiring the Raptor’s price or thirsty engine. The Colorado Trail Boss, by contrast, takes a visibly different approach with a two-inch lift and a wider stance. My Reef Blue example’s optional 20-inch wheels and 33-inch tires looked the part, although its firm ride was obvious on rough roads. The standard setup is 18-inch wheels with 32-inch tires.

Z71 brings additional equipment without the Trail Boss’s two-inch lift. ZR2 is the more substantial mechanical departure, with a three-inch lift, Multimatic DSSV dampers, and front and rear lockers. Bison adds 35-inch mud-terrain tires, further underbody protection, and jounce-control dampers. Ford answers with the Raptor’s Fox Live Valve dampers, coil-sprung Watts-link rear suspension, front and rear lockers, and a 405-hp V6. These are meaningful reasons to shop particular versions.

Beds, Back Seats, And Trailer Numbers

Both ranges offer a single crew-cab, roughly five-foot-bed format. Ford gives you a wider bed floor; Chevrolet gives you more length.

Payload and towing are configuration-dependent maxima, not every truck’s capacity. Options, occupants, cargo, and trailer tongue weight affect usable capacity. The highest payload and towing figures need not occur together.

A tenth of an inch doesn’t make one rearward cabin substantially more desirable than the other, but the bed-width difference could matter for your regular load. I also liked the Colorado’s tailgate ruler markings, and its roughly 2 more inches of length is worth noting. For towing, Chevrolet’s headline advantage is only 200 pounds on most models. Ford’s base four-cylinder can reach its regular Ranger maximum, so the V6 upgrade doesn’t raise the ceiling. Choose Raptor or ZR2 hardware, and the towing limit drops, though the Raptor sacrifices more hauling capability than the ZR2 does. Fuel economy also depends entirely upon specification. My V6 Ranger returned 22.2 mpg on its highway-heavy trip; the Trail Boss managed roughly 17 in mixed use, but their different routes skew that comparison.

Which One I’d Rather Live With

Ford makes a persuasive case through choice: an affordable four-cylinder, an optional V6, and a Raptor with substantially more horsepower than Chevrolet offers. Its wider bed and available cabin equipment add practical reasons to consider it. That said, I’d still buy the Colorado out of these two if it came down to it. Its standard engine supplies the torque I want without an upgrade, and I preferred how its powertrain and cabin worked during my test. Plus, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit its loud, whistling turbo noises hadn’t factored into that decision. The Colorado’s appeal goes beyond the Trail Boss badge, but it’s still the one I’d go for, since I appreciated its no-frills, pure-capability direction, though I still wish it at least had a telescoping steering wheel.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

The Honda Pilot is the archetypal SUV. It’s got lots of seats (eight), a big trunk, and a sensible, comfy cabin. There’s nothing too fancy here (the SUV tops out in the upper $50k range), and the segment certainly has more inspired options. But the Pilot’s the obvious choice, and has been forever. It turns out, it’s still the default choice, even for those with pets, so long as you can put up with a few drawbacks your dog probably won’t care about, like the poor fuel economy and the lazy transmission.

As ever, our tester is my 85-pound dog, Beorn. He’s happy to do it, and he works for cheap.

Ease of Access: Tall, But Not Too Tall

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

For an SUV, access into the Pilot isn’t so bad. It’s tall, which does mean dogs will have to take a run up and a jump to get in, but it’s not so terribly tall that smaller dogs would struggle to get up into the rear passenger space. The story is much the same in the back, aided somewhat by the fact that without a seat, the floor is a little bit lower. Perhaps just as critical as height, the door opens nice and wide. Beorn didn’t struggle at all to get out, and was able to hop straight down without twisting through a narrow opening.

Interior Space: There’s Plenty Of It

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Unsurprisingly, the huge SUV has plenty of room for pets inside. Maybe even more importantly, there are lots of ways to fit your dog and other stuff. For example, the Pilot’s center seat in the second row actually folds away, which lets your dog ride on the third-row bench seat while two passengers sit in the second row. Of course, the seats also fold in a litany of ways, which makes carrying cargo and keeping it separate from your pet similarly easy. The seat bottoms in both rows are also flat, which means there’s lots of room to lie flat on the seats, too.

Materials: Mostly Pet-Proof

Materials in the Pilot vary a lot by trim, from basic cloth seats to these suede-trimmed leather ones found in upper trims like the Touring, Elite, and Black Edition. Regardless, they’re all pretty scratch-, dirt-, and vomit-proof. The Pilot, after all, is built for families, and Honda very reasonably suspects something is going to throw up, spill, or drop something in the back seats. The door cards are plastic, which might scratch easily but is better off than more delicate materials. All in all, I wouldn’t worry too much about the interior on the Pilot if you have pets.

Verdict: As Good As SUVs Get For Pet Owners

To no one’s surprise, the giant box-shaped object on wheels is pretty great at hauling around pets. The Pilot isn’t very inspired, but a few clever features do help make life easier for pet owners. The SUV’s fold-down center seat is a great way to carry pets, people, and cargo with ease, for example. It’s hard to go wrong with the Pilot.

Any family SUV can make a convincing first impression with flashy lighting signatures and large, handsome wheels. The hardest part comes after everyone climbs aboard, the luggage goes in, and your whole family hits the open road. The 2027 Kia Telluride Hybrid and 2026 Hyundai Palisade Hybrid share nearly identical mechanical ingredients, both sitting on the same underpinnings. Beyond their distinct styling, their differences become most apparent when you open the doors and look at what each manufacturer includes for the money. I spent a day with the Palisade Hybrid Calligraphy around Austin and Texas Hill Country, followed by approximately 30 minutes in the Telluride Hybrid X-Line SX-Prestige AWD at Drive Revolution in Vancouver, Washington. This comparison draws on those separate drives and U.S. specifications.

Prices are U.S. MSRP before destination, options, taxes, and dealer charges. Economy figures apply to the configurations identified; towing requires appropriate equipment and compliance with vehicle and trailer limits.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Starting Outside: Similar Footprints, Different Personalities

Both SUVs have stout, upright proportions that announce serious family duty. The Telluride measures 199.2 inches long; the Palisade is essentially the same size, with Calligraphy stretching to 199.4 inches. Neither offers an escape from the big parking space. Kia gives the X-Line a darker, outdoorsy presentation, and my Black Jade Green example wore that treatment particularly well. Hyundai’s Cast Iron Brown Pearl and brown upholstery reminded me more of the grand American family wagons I discussed in the original review, and despite its modern look, it takes on a more traditional, old-school sense of coziness.

Approach the doors, and Kia adds some theater with handles that extend automatically. Hyundai uses conventional pulls. The distinction changes the welcome as much as the appearance. The badges need decoding, too. Kia offers a hybrid X-Line, but the more specialized X-Pro is gasoline-only. Hyundai’s XRT Pro belongs exclusively to the V6 lineup. Both hybrids have 7.4 inches of clearance, so the Kia’s adventurous styling doesn’t offer a clearance advantage; it’s just a bit more provocative to look at.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Hop Inside: Hyundai Feels More Traditionally Luxurious, Kia Feels Sporty And Modern

The Telluride organizes its displays and physical controls into a cohesive dashboard. Prestige trim adds engineered-wood accents and a suede-look headliner, giving the cabin visual warmth and enough detail to reward a closer inspection.

The Palisade uses a broad horizontal dashboard and a substantial center console, with open storage beneath. Follow that console forward, and physical switchgear remains within reach. Its layout feels like a well-furnished room, complete with useful places for the belongings its occupants inevitably bring aboard. An important difference between the two SUVs is their use of materials: Palisade Calligraphy offers Nappa leather seating surfaces, while Telluride Prestige uses synthetic SynTex and SynTex suede trim. Buying the Kia’s upper trim doesn’t get you genuine leather. Personally, I preferred the Hyundai’s more traditional luxury, but the upholstery distinction gives buyers something concrete to consider alongside my own subjective impression.

Try The Features: Two Charging Pads Or A Built-In Dashcam?

Both SUVs supply a 12.3-inch infotainment touchscreen and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Kia uses Meridian for premium audio, while Hyundai uses Bose, each with 14 speakers. Kia supplies two wireless charging pads, while Hyundai provides one with a cooling fan. Two people can charge compatible phones wirelessly in the Telluride without arguing over whose battery is lowest.

Hyundai counters with an available factory dual-camera dashcam and a UV-C compartment in the console, features absent from Kia’s published U.S. equipment list. The integrated camera interests me more than the sanitizing compartment, especially if it saves me from installing another device. Both hybrids also offer Stay Mode, which lets you use cabin systems while parked.

Move Into The Rear: Count Seats, Then Try Them

If you need eight seats, the choice is obvious: Hyundai offers that configuration on lower hybrid trims. The U.S. Telluride Hybrid lineup seats up to seven, with second-row captain’s chairs. Palisade Calligraphy also seats up to seven. Both offer heated and ventilated second-row seating, but the finer amenities require attention. Kia puts second-row Relaxation seats and heated outboard third-row seats in the optional Executive Package on Prestige trims. Hyundai includes second-row Relaxation seating and third-row heating on Calligraphy. The right seat demonstration can therefore mean different things for the final bill.

However, climb into the third row, and the luxury-car facade becomes a bit less convincing. The space is cramped for adults, but adequate for small children. Heating can make a small seat warmer, but it can’t make it bigger. I would reserve these seats primarily for tiny tots or very occasional adult use. Both SUVs claim up to 32.1 inches of third-row legroom. The directly competing 2026 Toyota Grand Highlander lists 33.5 inches, while the larger 2026 Ford Expedition offers 36.5 inches in its standard seating position, meaning some rivals in this segment offer better third-row legroom without needing to jump to a full-size SUV. Seat height, foot space, and second-row position also affect comfort, but families regularly carrying adults in every row should spend meaningful time back here before buying.

Open The Liftgates: Kia Carries More

The Telluride provides 21.3 cubic feet behind its third row, versus the Palisade’s 19.1. Its advantage continues as seats fold: 47.7 cubic feet behind the second row and 88.3 overall, compared with Hyundai’s 46.3 and 86.7. The space available with everyone aboard is the most consequential difference. Families can’t always fold another seat to accommodate more luggage. Kia also adds a folding luggage table with cupholders, giving you a useful surface at the tailgate.

Towing gives the Telluride another advantage: 4,500 pounds against the Palisade Hybrid’s 4,000, properly equipped. Buyers whose loaded trailer falls between those limits have a concrete reason to favor the Kia. Payload, passengers, luggage, and the required towing equipment still factor into that calculation.

Take A Drive: Matching Output, Different Feel

These SUVs’ matching horsepower and torque figures make this an unusually close mechanical comparison. Both use a conventional six-speed automatic, with hybrid assistance that requires no plug. The Telluride delivered agreeable responses, comfortable handling, and natural-feeling braking, although hard acceleration could expose some coarseness. The Palisade has a slight edge, at least to my own senses, for its more intuitive driving feel and the comfort it delivered across my Texan outing. The Kia, however, boasts marginally stronger EPA-estimated efficiency figures: 35 mpg combined for EX FWD versus Hyundai’s best 34, and 31 versus 29 for the upper-class AWD versions discussed here.

Compare The Prices: The Cheaper SUV Depends On The Trim

The Palisade’s hybrid entry price is $2,330 lower, with the same gap remaining between the cheapest AWD versions. However, Kia’s EX includes ventilated front seats, while Hyundai requires SEL Premium for that feature. Move up to the better-equipped versions I tested, and the ordering reverses. Telluride X-Line SX-Prestige AWD starts $1,190 below Palisade Hybrid Calligraphy AWD, before destination and options. The non-X-Line Telluride SX-Prestige AWD is another $1,000 less.

How I’d Spec It

If I were cross-shopping these two SUVs, I’d personally opt for a Palisade Hybrid Calligraphy in Cast Iron Brown Pearl with brown Nappa leather upholstery, just like the one I drove. That warm, coordinated palette suits its traditional luxury character and reinforces the family-wagon connection that made it so appealing. Plus, its competitive leasing programs mean the monthly payment gap between the Calligraphy and lesser-equipped models isn’t overly chasmic.

Its cabin and driving feel justify considering the Calligraphy’s premium, although the cramped third row remains an important qualification for both SUVs. The Telluride counters with more cargo room, a higher towing limit, stronger EPA economy, and two wireless charging pads. The Kia makes several family tasks easier on paper, but the Hyundai’s particular combination of comfort, design, and road manners would bring me back for the keys.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Realistically, every adventure SUV spends an awful lot of time doing things that would look painfully dull in commercials. Popping out for groceries, transporting friends and family, and crawling through city traffic rarely require recovery hooks. They do, however, reveal whether those rugged accessories belong to a vehicle you actually enjoy living with. After separate week-long tests of the 2026 Ford Bronco Sport Big Bend and GMC Terrain AT4 around Vancouver and British Columbia’s backroads, I came away appreciating both more than I expected. Their differences became most apparent when I considered what each asks buyers to prioritize. Ford sells more personality for less money; GMC charges more for a calmer daily experience. The question is whether that extra polish justifies the premium.

Prices exclude options, taxes, and destination. My Ford tester had the Bronze + Black Diamond Off-Road equipment; a standard Big Bend does not include all that hardware.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving: Ford Makes The Ordinary More Enjoyable, GMC Makes It More Comfortable

On paper, the numbers suggest something a draw. Just five horsepower separates these engines’ outputs, and GMC counters with only three extra pound-feet of torque. Both also use conventional eight-speed automatics, an appealing distinction for buyers who dislike a CVT’s rubber-band delivery. When it came down to actual driving character out on the road, I personally favored the Ford, at least from the driver’s seat. Its three-cylinder has a raspy voice and an audible turbocharger whoosh, while its drive modes make a noticeable difference. Sport suits winding coastal roads; Eco feels far more relaxed around town.

The GMC felt responsive enough when accelerating from a standstill, but less enthusiastic on the highway. Occasional abrupt shifts also interrupted its otherwise agreeable manners. Its strength was settling into the journey smoothly, rather than encouraging me to make more of it. So simply matching engine displacement and similar output figures doesn’t guarantee a similar driving experience here. Anyone expecting the GMC’s higher price to buy stronger performance should think twice.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Comfort And Practicality: Passengers And Cargo Want Different Things

The Terrain’s smoother ride and quieter cabin make for a stronger overall experience than these two SUVs. Its cabin also impressed me with its assembly quality in ways the Bronco Sport didn’t quite match. The Ford’s firmer ride and tighter rear seating are also more obvious compromises. For someone regularly transporting adults, that matters far more in a vehicle like this than how entertaining the turbo sounds. A vehicle can justify its added cost through the experience it gives passengers, even when it offers little advantage to the driver.

Cargo space tells a different story. The Bronco Sport provides 2.7 cubic feet more behind its rear seats and 1.7 more with them folded. Its upright body uses vertical space well, though volume alone can’t tell you whether a particular stroller or suitcase will fit. Ford’s rear glass can also be opened separately from the rest of the tailgate, adding another useful dimension. You can reach smaller items without opening the entire liftgate, and the available cargo-management shelf provides another way to organize the space. The GMC counters with underfloor storage and a console pass-through. Your choice should depend on what you carry most often: comfortable passenger space and cargo volume are separate advantages, and these SUVs prioritize them differently.

Adventure Hardware: Compare The Equipment You’re Actually Buying

The AT4 includes all-terrain tires, off-road-tuned suspension, a front skid plate, underbody protection, and recovery hooks. Its Terrain mode assists with low-speed crawling, while the factory hitch supports a 1,500-pound towing rating. Whereas GMC loads the AT4 up with off-road goodies right off the bat, Ford makes the equipment decision more configurable with the Big Bend. A standard Big Bend wears all-season tires; the available Black Diamond Off-Road package adds all-terrain rubber and steel skid plates. My tester’s additional Bronze treatment supplied visual character, but buyers should distinguish appearance spending from equipment they will use. Neither test established a winner on an identical obstacle course. My drives support their suitability for ordinary backroad outings, rather than a claim that either can follow a full-size Bronco anywhere. The Ford’s superior 2,200-pound maximum towing rating is useful, provided you order the required package.

Technology: Both Work Well And Stay Out Of Your Way, GMC Has A Larger Touchscreen

Ford supplies a 13.2-inch SYNC 4 touchscreen. GMC uses a 15-inch display, an 11-inch instrument screen, and Google built-in compatibility, with additional camera views available. Both handled wireless Apple CarPlay well during my tests. Ford’s system mostly stayed out of my way; GMC’s camera presentation was particularly welcome. Check which cameras and convenience features come with the specific vehicle, especially when comparing an optioned Big Bend against a standard AT4.

Value: The Price Gap Needs A Purpose

Before destination, the Terrain AT4 costs $7,555 more than the Big Bend. That is substantial money in this segment, although comparing the cheapest Ford with an equipped adventure trim overstates how closely those configurations match. My Canadian-market Bronco Sport reached C$50,665, including delivery, after it had been equipped with packages that bring its overall feature list much closer to the GMC’s. A U.S.-market Big Bend with a similar configuration costs roughly $39,000, including destination charges and acquisition fees, quickly narrowing the value proposition.

Fuel economy offers Ford another modest advantage: 27 mpg combined against 25. At 15,000 miles annually and an assumed $4 per gallon, those ratings imply roughly $180 in yearly savings. My average with the Ford was only 21.4 mpg, however, so real-world fuel economy will ultimately depend more on your driving habits. GMC’s premium therefore needs to earn its keep through comfort, equipment, and cabin appeal; it doesn’t buy stronger performance or extra cargo volume.

Overall Verdict: The Bronco Sport Earns My Vote

Out of these two SUVs, I’d personally opt for a carefully configured Bronco Sport Big Bend. Its character makes routine driving more enjoyable, its boxy retro-modern design is far more enticing, and its cargo flexibility and lower entry price give that preference practical substance. The Terrain AT4 remains a more persuasive choice for someone who values a more comfortable commute and regularly carries adult passengers in the rear seats. Its appeal becomes strongest when you decide that refinement deserves more of your budget than quicker acceleration or nostalgic styling.

The Ford leaves me wanting hybrid power and a gentler ride, while the GMC leaves me wanting a more competitive price. Of those wishes, the latter is harder to overlook when the less expensive competitor is also the one I enjoyed driving more. An adventure SUV still has to make the grocery run worthwhile. For me, the Bronco Sport does just that.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

There’s some understandable confusion surrounding Volvo’s big three-row SUVs. The XC90 offers mild-hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains, while the similarly named EX90 is a separate, fully electric vehicle. They share a family resemblance and an apparent commitment to making parents look responsible, but they aren’t interchangeable. The vehicle I drove is the 2027 Volvo XC90 Ultra T8 AWD plug-in hybrid. That’s a considerable amount of name. By the time you finish saying it, the children have graduated and no longer need the third row.

The T8 sits at the powerful, expensive end of the XC90 family, combining a turbocharged gasoline engine with electric propulsion and seating for six or seven. It occupies an interesting position among luxury SUVs, competing for attention with vehicles like the Acura MDX, Infiniti QX60 and Genesis GV80. Volvo’s appeal has always been a little different, though. It offers handsome design and comfortable surroundings without making you feel obligated to explain your watch collection.

Powertrain and Performance

Under the hood is a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine connected to an eight-speed automatic transmission. The gasoline engine drives the front wheels, while a separate electric motor powers the rear axle. Together, they provide all-wheel drive and a listed combined output of 401 horsepower and approximately 494 pound-feet of torque. That’s plenty of motivation for something primarily tasked with moving families and their increasingly elaborate luggage.

Importantly, the engine doesn’t send its power through the transmission to the rear electric motor. These are separate propulsion sources working together electronically. The arrangement allows the Volvo to operate electrically under suitable conditions, blend gasoline and electric power, or lean on the engine for longer journeys. All XC90s have standard all-wheel drive, but the T8’s method of delivering it differs from the mild-hybrid versions.

Related: Toyota’s 75th Anniversary Land Cruiser Is Limited to Just 75 Units

The battery has an advertised capacity of 18.8 kWh, and the fuel tank holds 18.8 gallons. A rather Swedish numerical coincidence, though I strongly recommend keeping track of which one gets gasoline. Electric range is roughly 32 to 33 miles, depending on the applicable specification, making regular charging worthwhile for shorter commutes. This is the sort of PHEV that makes considerably more sense when you actually use the “plug-in” part of its name.

Charging is an AC affair rather than a quick stop at a highway DC fast charger. Allow approximately five hours on an appropriate 240-volt connection, with timing dependent on the charging equipment and conditions. The frequently quoted 58 MPGe figure is an energy-equivalence rating, not a promise of 58 miles per gallon after the battery’s usable charge is depleted. Plug-in hybrid efficiency requires a little context and, ideally, a nearby outlet.

Exterior and Interior Design

The XC90’s basic silhouette has been around for years, but it continues to wear its age remarkably well. Recent front-end revisions freshened the grille and lighting treatment without turning the vehicle into something that looks offended by its own reflection. The available Dark theme adds black exterior detailing for buyers who prefer less brightwork. I like the stance and the overall restraint. Volvo understands that a luxury SUV can look expensive without wearing a grille large enough to redirect migratory birds.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Inside, the Scandinavian approach remains appealing. The dashboard is clean, the materials are attractive, and the cabin feels thoughtfully arranged. Unfortunately, my large American tush repeatedly detected a firm spot near the center of the front seat. The rest of the seat was comfortable, but that particular patch made its presence known, especially when getting in and out. Your backside may have a different opinion. Mine insists on participating in every review.

Buyers can choose a seven-seat layout with a second-row bench or a six-seat arrangement with individual second-row seats. The latter provides a useful passage toward the third row, although the rearmost accommodations remain better suited to smaller passengers. Folding and arranging the seats took more effort than I wanted, but the resulting space is useful. Maximum advertised cargo capacity reaches approximately 85.7 cubic feet with the rear rows folded, and properly equipped versions can tow up to 5,000 pounds.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Technology: Lovely Hardware, Occasional Frustration

The central display measures 11.2 inches and runs Volvo’s Google-based infotainment system. A separate 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster handles the information directly ahead of the driver. I found that display clear and effective. My relationship with the touchscreen was considerably less affectionate.

Google integration provides useful navigation and voice functions, with Gemini bringing additional conversational capability where enabled. Personally, I’d prefer fewer conversations with my dashboard and more direct access to basic controls. The screen looks good, but finding what I wanted wasn’t always intuitive. A vehicle this calming shouldn’t occasionally make me want to negotiate with it.

Audio was a much happier subject. The available 14-speaker Harman Kardon system is respectable, but my vehicle had the upgraded Bowers & Wilkins setup. It sounded excellent. That’s the kind of technology I can appreciate immediately, preferably with Rush playing and nobody asking me to change the destination.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Driving Through Malibu in the Rain

A modest rainstorm provided a useful opportunity to experience the XC90 beyond the usual sunny commute. Despite its roughly 5,100-pound weight, the Volvo felt responsive and composed through Malibu’s wet roads. It doesn’t deliver the engagement of a sporting BMW, but it handles confidently enough to keep an interested driver entertained.

In a brief, low-speed check in an empty parking lot, the front tires began to push before stability control intervened. The useful takeaway is that electronic assistance can help manage a developing slide; it doesn’t manufacture additional grip. On the road, the XC90’s predictable responses and reassuring demeanor were more relevant than any attempts at hooliganism.

Some passengers found the ride firmer than expected, and the large wheels likely contributed. Nevertheless, the cabin remained well isolated, and the overall experience was comfortable. This is a particularly agreeable place to spend a commute, touchscreen disagreements notwithstanding.

Final Thoughts

Expect roughly $80,000 for a T8 Plus and the low-to-mid-$80,000 range for an Ultra before options and applicable charges. That puts it firmly among serious luxury competitors. The Acura MDX Type S and Genesis GV80 deserve consideration, but neither offers this particular combination of three-row accommodations and plug-in capability.

The XC90 T8’s strongest argument is everyday flexibility. Charge regularly, use electric power for local travel, and retain gasoline convenience for longer trips. Add handsome styling, useful space and a composed driving experience, and the appeal is easy to understand.

Related: 2027 Nissan Pathfinder Heritage Edition: Burgundy Is Back, and So Are the Memories

I’d happily take fewer touchscreen chores and a little more forgiveness in the seat cushion. Still, this Volvo won me over with its calm, capable personality.

It has enough power to hurry. Better yet, it rarely makes you feel that you need to

Related: I Drove The 2027 Genesis G80 Prestige Black: Here’s My Honest Review Of Genesis’ Darker Take On Executive Luxury

The sum total of my “old car” experience is pretty narrow. I’ve driven some Japanese stuff from the 1990s, and I’ve even driven a few old Audis from the ’70s. An R32 Nissan GT-R stands tall among these, but that feels pretty modern compared to a lot of stuff from the ’70s. Or so I thought, before climbing behind the wheel of this 1971 BMW 3.0 CS.

The shape, the look, the feel of this thing screams classic. I’ve always had a soft spot for BMWs for some reason, and this represents a high watermark from one of the brand’s most formative eras. A luxury sports car with a big inline-six at the front, driven wheels at the back, and four seats between, the CS is emblematic of a formula the Bavarian automaker has been trying to hone for generations.

The Numbers

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Inarguably, the most critical aspect of that formula is one of the brand’s many straight-six engines. The real ball-knowers call this one the M30, an evolution of an earlier version with less displacement. This one, as the name implies, comes with a full three liters of it. No replacement, and so on. Power, as a result, is a surprisingly modern figure: 200 horsepower and 199 lb-ft if yours is fuel-injected, or 178 hp and 188 lb-ft if it’s carbed. You also got your choice of three-speed auto or four-speed manual. Thank Christ this is the latter.

Don’t Call The CS “Old”

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Depending on the vintage, these cars weighed somewhere between 3,050 pounds and 3,200 pounds. That means even by today’s standards, the old BMW has some get-up to it. There’s a surprising rush of torque, especially given this is just a four-speed. The clutch is twitchier than newer cars, but get out of it and onto the gas, and the reason for owning one of these becomes increasingly clear as the revs rise.

The strong, easy pull of the M30 is something a fella could become partial to, and that’s omitting the noise. That BMW sound is in full force here, and suffice it to say, words don’t do justice.

Tipping the car into a corner, I was surprised at how easily it set to the task, with the four-wheel independent suspension feeling shockingly modern given I’d just climbed out of a new Miata the day before. Sure, you feel like the whole thing is going to tip, but it doesn’t, and the steering is communicative despite how much play there is in a car this old.

Similarly, the brakes feel surprisingly modern. They’re damn heavy, but one ought to expect a little more work given the age of the car. With discs at all four corners, I couldn’t imagine how impressive this thing felt 50-some years ago. Hopping off the brakes and back to the gas, the 3.0 exits corners gracefully, and while it’s definitely not in a rush, you could have plenty of fun in one of these on a nice back road without feeling like you’re holding up traffic.

The 3.0 CS Is More GT Than Sports Car

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

It’s worth pointing out that this is the cruiser of the BMW lineup at the time. The little 2002 was more of a sports car, but the 3.0 is still plenty fun. Chill out and start cruising around, and it’s a lovely experience. The interior is nice, even given the ’70s plastics. The seats are beautifully upholstered, plenty comfy, and while there’s basically zero bolstering, you’ll be too busy catching a big ol’ vibe with the windows down to care.

There’s a shocking amount of visibility, as in all cars from the 20th century and prior, and I’d imagine this would be an immensely fun car to take a road trip in thanks to the cushy ride, big trunk, and plush seating.

Classic Looks In And Out

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Given its 1971 vintage, it’s evident this car is more of a midcentury vibe than cars that would succeed it. The gentle curves, even the one in the windscreen, chrome accents, and thin pillars (with obligatory Hofmeister kink at the rear quarter window) all attribute themselves to the swinging ’60s. I’ll be the first to put up my hand and claim a BMW bias, but it’s hard to argue with what’s going on here even if I weren’t inclined.

The story inside is the same. The low dash and ample glass mean it feels like you’re sitting atop a car rather than in it, and the shifter feels sort of low in the car, either as a result of this or the high seats. The center console sets the precedent for BMW interiors all the way up to the E46 generation 3 Series, with window switches flanking the shifter and a litany of physical controls.

Final Thoughts: BMW’s 3.0 CS Is A Well-Loved Classic For A Reason

There’s very little to complain about here. Time does this thing to old cars, where they seem to get better the further removed they are from the constraints of their day. I have no doubt someone’s period test drive of this has some nitpicks to it, but it’s tough to point out objective flaws in something that’s become more than just transportation. I guess the shifter is pretty ropey? Truly, that’s about it. The bones are here, and you can see why BMW is still making sports cars within this format more than five decades later.

Catch some air, and the 2027 Ram 1500 SRT TRX knows it. Its Jump Detection system adjusts the powertrain and suspension to protect the driveline and prepare for landing—a revealing clue to what sort of truck its engineers set out to build. Its supercharged 6.2-liter Hemi V8 now produces 777 horsepower, 75 more than before, and Ram claims 0–60 mph in just 3.5 seconds. Ram has clearly done more than extract fossilized dinosaur blood from prehistoric mosquitoes trapped in amber here—the Jurassic beast isn’t just back; it’s angrier than ever.

At NWAPA’s Drive Revolution event in Vancouver, Washington, I spent about 30 minutes behind the wheel to see how that outrageous engineering translates into normal, everyday driving on ordinary roads. For all its airborne ambitions and sports-car acceleration, the TRX still needs to offer something worth enjoying between the opportunities to unleash it. With my tester wearing a $108,215 price tag, I wanted to understand how much of its appeal remains when your right foot exercises a little restraint—and all four tires stay on the ground.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving: What 777 Horsepower Feels Like On Normal Roads

After sitting out the 2025 and 2026 model years, the TRX returns with a reworked supercharged 6.2-liter Hemi V8. A smaller pulley spins its 2.4-liter supercharger harder, while a revised intake, higher fuel pressure, and updated calibration help raise output from 702 to 777 hp. The redline climbs to 6,500 rpm, and torque reaches 680 lb-ft. The TRX stamps out its power less abruptly than other Hellcat-powered models, perhaps owing to the truck’s weight. Instead, it gathers pace progressively, then suddenly you look down, and the speedometer reads a considerably higher speed than what your senses believe to be true. The supercharger gives the powertrain a sharp, immediate sense of elasticity you can play with—via the positioning of your right heel—to either waft you around town or snap the three-tonne truck to speeds you’d be swiftly arrested for doing in some states.

The TRX’s chassis adopts second-generation Bilstein Black Hawk e2 adaptive dampers from the RHO. Electronically controlled valves regulate compression and rebound independently, while Ram Active Terrain Dynamics coordinates suspension behavior with traction and stability control. Front spring rates, jounce bumpers, and damping calibration are matched specifically to the V8 application. Hydraulic jounce control cushions extreme suspension compression, while the long-travel layout retains 13 inches of front travel and 14 at the rear. Those clever underpinnings deliver a cushy ride with surprisingly refined body control, capable of conquering a road trip as comfortably as it can hop over sand dunes.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Interior And Technology: Luxury To Match The Muscle

With a supercharged V8 making such a spectacle of itself, the TRX’s cabin risks having its surprising sense of occasion overshadowed. Yet its material quality impressed me immediately, and the generous use of suede adds abundant visual depth. The striking headliner adds tons of drama to an experience already overflowing with it, making the interior feel appropriately indulgent for a six-figure truck. For 2027, that full suede headliner and the matching sun visors are new to the TRX, alongside a leather-wrapped airbag cover—details borrowed from the luxurious Ram 1500 Tungsten.

As specced, my tester also borrowed massaging front seats, heated and ventilated seating in both rows, and reclining rear seats from the luxurious Tungsten model. 2027’s updates also add a 14.5-inch Uconnect 5 touchscreen and standard hands-free driving assistance. Those amenities are now standard TRX equipment, which helps explain where some of that purchase price goes. Although my time with the Ram was brief, the cabin felt seriously luxurious, contributing something worth enjoying whenever the engine’s theatrics subside.

Value: Making Sense Of A Six-Figure Supertruck

There’s no doubt in my mind that, despite its six-figure price tag and downright disturbing fuel economy—EPA estimates just 10 mpg in the city and 14 mpg on the highway, for an unsettling combined total of 12 mpg—the Ram 1500 SRT TRX won’t struggle to find buyers. The TRX’s callous disregard for rationality is precisely what makes it so desirable in the first place, and though I wouldn’t go so far as to call the thirsty, expensive truck a “bargain,” its value proposition actually has a bit more substance than emotional appeal alone. Starting at $102,790 including destination, it undercuts the 2026 Ford F-150 Raptor R’s $113,725 starting price by nearly $11,000. Even my $108,215 tester costs about $5,500 less than the Ford’s starting price, while delivering 57 more horsepower and massaging seats. Within this wonderfully irrational corner of the truck market, the Ram’s pricing is surprisingly competitive.

Used examples add another intriguing element to the value equation. A 2021 TRX with 31,000 miles sold on Bring a Trailer for $69,500 in August 2026, retaining approximately 78% of its original $88,990 sticker price. A 2022 example with 14,900 miles brought $73,000 on Cars & Bids that May, roughly 80% of its original $90,985 MSRP. Keep in mind these are real auction results before fees and taxes, so they offer far more substance than optimistically priced classified ads. Two sales on platforms known to draw in high bids may not be enough to establish an average depreciation rate or predict this new model’s future value, and anyone who paid a substantial dealer markup faces different margins of return. Nevertheless, I find those results somewhat reassuring here: buyers still tend to attach considerable value to the TRX’s particular brand of excess long after they leave dealer lots.

Its 12-mpg combined rating is still an expensive appetite to satisfy, and maintenance, insurance, and tires deserve consideration, too. But desirability matters when buying a vehicle and when eventually selling it, and, truthfully, I don’t imagine the average TRX buyer really cares all that much about fuel economy. The TRX might be an expensive way to turn gasoline into laughter, but its financial case is still somewhat more defensible than its outrageous personality initially suggests.

Overall Verdict: Appeal Beyond The Numbers

The TRX’s appeal, as raucous and bodacious as it is, may actually lie mostly in how surprisingly refined and luxurious it feels as a complete package. Its elastic, brutal power delivery, cushy yet controlled ride, and indulgent cabin give you plenty to appreciate between the moments when the Hellcat engine gets to really stretch its legs. That matters, because even the most committed supertruck owner will spend more time cruising than catching air. At six figures, I expect more than a party trick or two, and the TRX’s blend of absurdity and refinement delivers an experience that feels special even on an ordinary drive. Its thirst remains difficult to defend logically, but thankfully, the enjoyment isn’t limited to the moments you’re emptying its tank fastest. Ram engineered this truck to leap over dunes, but I didn’t need to defy gravity to discover why it deserved to return from extinction.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.