Let’s be honest. The compact luxury sedan is an irrational car. It’s the size of a Honda Civic but costs twice as much. But every year, a half-million Americans are willing to pay a substantial premium for the experience of owning, driving, and of course being seen in one of these premium cars.
So think of this not as a Big Test but instead as a Big Picture Test, where the judges turn into bit actors, spending even more time than usual in the mindset of actual shoppers looking at this class of vehicle.
Like any in-market consumer, we looked at the whole picture, including price, depreciation, reliability, dealer experience, safety, infotainment features, and cargo- and passenger-carrying capacity. But given the nature of this category, subjective criteria also come into play, so things such as styling, brand image, overall appeal, and driving enjoyment are major factors in this test.
Our entry criteria were simple: a modest-down-payment, $399/month lease for 36 months, four doors, and a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine. The contenders: the Alfa Romeo Giulia, Audi A4 2.0TQuattro, BMW 330i, Cadillac ATS 2.0T, Jaguar XE 25t, Lexus IS 200t F Sport, Mercedes-Benz C300, and Volvo S60 T6 R-Design.
Because automakers tend to selectively apply incentives such as cap-cost reductions and padded lease-end residual values, we backstopped our lease deals with a target sticker price between $45,000 and $48,000.
Most automakers were able to supply us with an applicable vehicle, but Volvo instead sent a pricey turbocharged and supercharged T6 R-Design and not the T5 Inscription Platinum we requested—and was penalized appropriately. Infiniti had no applicable Q50 in its press fleet.
The ranking you see is the order in which we would buy or lease these cars with our own money. We spent weeks piling on thousands of miles of abuse on these cars to truly test their real-world abilities.
Happily, our group of nine judges reached a clear consensus on the finishing order. Feel free to argue about how your personal driving preferences bias you toward one car over another. But remember: If this were all about buying the most practical choice, you’d just buy a Civic, right?
Ride & Handling
The single most important attribute of a luxury sport sedan is the driving experience. It must handle like a four-door sports car, but it must also ride acceptably well for a luxury car. Nailing that balance is no easy task, and many came up short.
The biggest disappointment came from the BMW, which created the benchmark for this segment three decades ago. We’ve long criticized the latest 3 Series for being too soft, and this latest update hasn’t addressed that. The ride is comfortable, yes, but at the expense of handling, which no longer feels as sharp or focused. Rather than the class leader, it’s class generic.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Alfa. It was the nearly unanimous driver’s favorite, simultaneously a marvelous car to drive fast and still a comfortable commuter. The steering is quick, responsive, and talkative. The chassis responds perfectly to every input while muting every bump. More than any car here, it put the sport in sport sedan without suffering a jarring ride as a trade-off. A close second to the Alfa is the Cadillac, which got the vote from the lone dissenter. But its equally phenomenal chassis and steering were offset by a less luxurious ride quality.
Similar ride and handling trade-offs were the rule among the Lexus, Jaguar, Mercedes, and Audi. The Lexus handles nicely and rides well, but its portly curb weight made it feel heavy and dulled its responses. The Jaguar and Mercedes handled very well, but rubber-band tires and stiff shocks hurt their ride quality. The Audi both handled and rode very well, but the experience was very isolated and disconnected from the road. Many an editor likened it to a driving simulator.
The Volvo, which once overachieved in this category, felt a generation behind. The heaviest car here, its weight was a constant presence in corners despite the all-wheel drive’s best efforts to yank it out of the corner and down the straight. The steering was full of vibration from the all-wheel drive, and the ride wasn’t spectacular. In a hot segment, it’s just out-classed.
Given the range of vehicles you could lease at this price, your decision to go with a sport sedan suggests you value performance. As such, this attribute likely weighs heavily on your purchase priorities. It’s the bedrock attribute of this segment.
The BMW 3 Series defined this segment and ruled it for decades, but in this test, it comes up average. It’s slightly above midpack in acceleration but among the worst in braking and just average in our instrumented handling tests. Still, judges praised its linear acceleration, minimal turbo lag, and excellent transmission programing.
If you want absolute performance at this price point and fuel economy, look no further than the Audi. A sleeper, the conservatively styled A4 is the quickest both in a straight line and around our figure-eight test. Its dual-clutch transmission and all-wheel drive give it a performance and traction edge off the line. But beyond 60 mph the Alfa’s best weight-to-power ratio and shortest gearing deliver the best performance, reaching 100 mph 1 second quicker and finishing the quarter-mile 3.3 mph faster than the Audi. Likewise, the Mercedes, with its Sport package, equals the Audi’s best-in-class figure-eight performance while stopping shorter. The Alfa’s figure-eight performance was severely handicapped by its overly aggressive stability control, which couldn’t be defeated.
The Cadillac comes up surprisingly short given its second-most powerful engine and second-lightest curb weight. We attribute this to its tallish first gear and somewhat lazy transmission. The Jaguar’s second-shortest gearing compensates for its second-worst weight-to-power ratio to produce solidly midpack performance.
The Lexus earned its slowest straight-line performance fair and square with the second-highest curb weight (despite being only rear-wheel drive) and the second-least powerful engine. It just felt overburdened. What the Lexus lacked in power, though, it made up for in handling.
Then there’s the odd case of the Volvo. A turbocharged and supercharged T6 variant rather than the directly comparable turbocharged T5 we requested, it was the most powerful in the test and blessed with all-wheel drive and the R-Design sport package, not to mention a Polestar engine software upgrade. It was also, however, the heaviest. As such, it was third-quickest to 60 mph and stopped second-shortest, but it was slowest on the figure eight by a good margin.
Gas is pretty dang cheap right now, but it won’t always be. Even when it’s cheap, it’s still an expense. There’s also an expectation of good fuel economy that comes with a downsized engine. After all, you want some payback when you give up horsepower and torque.
According to the EPA’s standardized lab test, these vehicles all return very similar fuel economy. Going by window stickers alone, we see most get around 23/32/26 mpg city/highway/combined. The Jaguar fares the worst, posting 21/30/24 mpg rating. The Mercedes just beats out the Alfa and the Audi by returning a best-in-test 24/34/28 mpg city/highway/combined. As you can see, it’s not a broad spread.
Here, our Real MPG partnership with Emissions Analytics is invaluable. In real-world testing, the Mercedes fell 2 mpg short across the board, abdicating its top spot. The Jaguar redeemed itself in city and combined ratings, and the Lexus dropped to a worst-observed 20.4/31.1/24.2 mpg city/highway/combined. Meanwhile, the Alfa soared with an observed 28.2/37.9/31.8 mpg city/highway/combined, well above its EPA estimates in all categories. We must caution, however, that our Alfa Romeo and Lexus were preproduction units, and both could show different results once their final software calibrations are made.
Much of what makes a luxury sedan is its interior. After all, it’s the place where you spend time and the part of the car you spend the most time looking at, touching, listening to, and interacting with.
Regardless of the metrics used to score such subjective criteria, the Mercedes comes out on top. The elegant design and top-quality tactile materials made it a unanimous favorite among the judges. It also scored high marks in quietness, comfort, and rear-seat space. It was let down slightly by a cut-rate Garmin navigation system integrated into the otherwise all-Mercedes infotainment system.
The Audi also was well-received by the judges. The technical superiority was obvious; its virtual cockpit digital dash looked like something out of the future and offered features and functionality no competitor could match. We were also impressed with its impeccable build quality and excellent materials. It took demerits for a slightly tight rear seat, somewhat sterile design (apart from the dash), and slightly louder interior than we’d prefer.
Lexus came in a strong third, with high marks for build quality, materials, and interior quietness. Its design was controversial, and the rear seat was a bit cramped, but the seats were lauded for their comfort and support. The infotainment system and its finicky joystick interface earned unanimous scorn, even from the most generous judge. Even dismissing the controller, the system itself looks old and outdated, and it isn’t especially intuitive.
Other cars let down by their infotainment systems were the Cadillac and Jaguar. Although Cadillac’s CUE system is the best iteration to date, many of the judges still found the touch-sensitive controls difficult to use while driving and not always responsive. The Jaguar, also sporting its best infotainment system in years, drew complaints for being unintuitive and for crashing on several editors. Both cars were also hammered for their nearly unusable rear seats and rather dull interior designs.
The Volvo and BMW, meanwhile, were complimented for their comfort and decently sized rear seats but criticized for their dated interior designs and average materials quality. The BMW clawed some points back with its ergonomics, and the Volvo did, as well, because of its excellent seats. The BMW took hits for its incomprehensible Apple CarPlay integration, and the Volvo was dinged for its loud interior, especially for admitting rough engine noise into the cabin.
Then there’s the Alfa. Praised for its interesting and stylish interior design, it took knocks for its wonky ergonomics. We liked its decently large rear seat and comfortable front seats, but we took issue with the fit and finish and some cheaper materials.
As it was with fuel efficiency, our competitors are evenly matched in both government and insurance industry crash tests. No competitor scored lower than four stars out of five in the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s testing or Good in an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test. (IIHS scores range from Poor to Good in crashworthiness testing and from Basic to Superior in crash-prevention systems.) Still, there are details to be examined here.
We should note before going forward that neither the Alfa Romeo nor Jaguar have yet been tested by either U.S. agency. The cars have been crash tested by their manufacturers and the results accepted by the NHTSA, so they can be sold in the U.S. Both cars also received five out of five stars in Europe’s Euro NCAP crash testing. We should also note that some data used here comes from the 2015 and 2016 model years, but the vehicles in question have not changed substantially between then and the current model year.
As you might expect, the Volvo came out on top of a very competitive field. The company, which stakes its reputation squarely on safety, had perfect scores in every crash test and top marks in the IIHS’ tests for seats and crash avoidance systems, as well as high marks in IIHS tests for headlights and LATCH child seat anchors. It is an IIHS Top Safety Pick+, along with the Audi and BMW.
Among the rest of the pack, only the Volvo and Cadillac achieved a five-star front crash rating from NHTSA. The rest received four stars. All but the Mercedes-Benz received a five-star rollover rating from the NHTSA—the C300 scored four stars. Every competitor received five stars overall from NHTSA.
The IIHS hasn’t completed all tests on every competitor. In crash-prevention testing, the BMW and Lexus were the only two tested cars to receive an Advanced rating on their crash-avoidance systems. The rest received Superior grades. The Cadillac and Mercedes received Poor ratings for their headlights, and the rest tested received an Acceptable rating.
Because you’ll be paying the same lease price on all these competitors, value requires a different measurement. After all, no one wants to pay the same for a lesser car. How you define value is up to you, but for the purpose of this comparison, we’ve framed it as the content and performance you get for your $399 monthly payment. (And because many people buy out their leases, sticker price and retained value matter even in a leasing context.)
On this metric, the Audi shines brightest. Although its purchase price is on the higher end of the group, the return on investment is high. The Audi boasts the highest performance in our instrumented testing while also offering far more features than the rest. With price equalized, there’s no questioning the Audi’s dominance in the amount of car you get for the money. The Alfa scores high on performance and boasts the cheapest purchase price as-tested but has fewer features.
In the middle of the pack, the Jaguar offers quite a few features but is let down by low performance scores and a high as-tested price. The Lexus lands in a similar boat, but boasts a better as-tested price. The BMW, Cadillac, and Mercedes all offered a similar balance of performance and content. Cadillac, Mercedes, Lexus, and Volvo all sent cars equipped with sport handling packages, potentially in lieu of other content for the same money. BMW and Cadillac also tend to charge extra for features others include standard.
The Volvo stands out as a difficult case. Because a T6 R-Design was supplied, it carries the highest starting price and second-highest as-tested price, but it also snuck in a supercharged and turbocharged engine with by far the highest horsepower and torque output. As such, it performed well in testing and had high feature content. But at a $399 lease price, you’d actually get a T5 Inscription Platinum and give up the performance advantage.
Cost of Ownership
Time is a luxury and therefore so is reliability; no one wants to spend extra time at the dealer.
Unfortunately, the information on the all-new Alfa Romeo Giulia is incomplete. Having returned to the U.S. market only recently, there simply is no empirical data regarding reliability, maintenance, repairs, and depreciation on an Alfa Romeo—although past models have taken slings and arrows in European quality ratings. We’ve calculated values for those categories based on information from multiple sources, and we took an average of costs for the rest of the competitors.
Per our partners at Intellichoice, the Cadillac is the car whose lease you might consider buying out. Although not the cheapest in any category, low costs across the board keep the Cadillac’s five-year cost of ownership to $45,592. Conversely, the Lexus suffers high insurance, fuel, and maintenance costs, giving it the highest five-year cost at $52,254.
There’s also the matter of complimentary scheduled maintenance. Sometimes it’s baked into the lease price, sometimes the manufacturer eats the cost as an incentive that changes from year to year based on the marketing department’s whim. At present, Jaguar offers five years/60,000 miles of free maintenance; BMW, Cadillac, and Volvo offer three/36,000 miles, and Lexus gives the first two services in the first year for free. Alfa Romeo, Audi, and Mercedes still charge for routine maintenance.
We would also point out that the difference between the most and least expensive car to own over five years is less than $7,000, illustrating again just how evenly matched the competitors are.
We considered every facet of these nine cars. We debated long and hard over how to weigh each category, given the values of buyers in this class. We wrestled with reputations and missing data, balanced the marketing and hype, and noted the differing expectations and priorities between leasing and buying.
However, in a class where passion, prestige, and performance often take precedence over cold hard facts and logic, we follow our hearts as much or more than our heads.
As a result, the back of the pack is populated exclusively by older models who have seen the segment pass them by.
The Volvo, which finished in second place the last time around, is showing its age. Far and away the oldest car in the test, it was outclassed at nearly every turn. Thoughtful updates have kept it on life support, but a new engine is no substitute for the comprehensive updates needed to make the S60 truly competitive, and the all-new car can’t come soon enough.
The BMW 3 Series easily won our last Big Test in this class, but even with a recent refresh we found it lacking. It led no categories and inspired little love from the judges, except for its zingy engine. The pressure is on Bavaria to up the next edition’s game if it wants to improve on its seventh-place finish here.
The Cadillac and Jaguar fought fiercely for position in the middle of the pack, with the American just edging out the Brit. Both cars drove wonderfully, but both were kneecapped by penned-in rear seats. The deciding factor ended up being the Jag’s glitchy infotainment system.
An excellent all-around performer, the Mercedes-Benz C300 is by far the most luxurious car here while still offering serious performance credentials. If its options packages were more value-oriented and the Sport edition carried a more luxurious ride, it might’ve managed the silver instead of bronze. It’s a similar story for the fourth-place Lexus, which punched above its weight class on many fronts but couldn’t overcome a weak engine and infuriating infotainment system.
Finishing in an honorable second place is the Audi A4. On paper the Audi wins in terms of features and space, while matching the Alfa’s objective performance, but a sterile personality and a sense of isolation from the driving experience kept it out of first place. If you aren’t willing to try the Alfa until all the data is in, the Audi is an excellent second option.
But because lease deals are a temporary fling, a shopper has the luxury of making make a decision with as much emotion as pragmatism. By that measure, the Alfa Romeo Giulia stacks up well in every category. Its incredible performance and driving experience make it the easy choice for us. We’re willing to look past the reliability question marks to experience the passion this Italian delight delivers. Without question, if it were our money, this would be the car we’d pick.
8TH PLACE: VOLVO S60 T6
Stylish and safe, the Volvo can’t escape its long-past sell-by date. It’s an old car in a hyper-competitive class, and it just can’t keep up anymore.
7TH PLACE: BMW 330I
How the mighty have fallen. The reigning winner and standard-bearer of the class suffers from old age, dulled dynamics, and a lack of personality.
6TH PLACE: JAGUAR XE 25T
A new standard in the sporty-handling versus refined-ride equation, the Jaguar was undone by its tiny back seat, boring interior styling, and buggy infotainment system.
5TH PLACE: CADILLAC ATS 2.0T
The best sport sedan chassis in the class is let down by a useless back seat and barely acceptable infotainment system.
4TH PLACE: LEXUS IS 200T F SPORT
A good all-around performer, the weighty Lexus is underserved by its overstressed engine, unintuitive infotainment system, and polarizing styling.
3RD PLACE: MERCEDES-BENZ C300
The most luxurious of the field, the Mercedes needs to improve its ride quality and improve the value proposition of its pricing.
2ND PLACE: AUDI A4 2.0T QUATTRO
Smart, practical, sophisticated, and something of a Q-ship, the Audi quietly crawled its way up the podium but lacked the personality to take the top spot.
1ST PLACE: ALFA ROMEO GIULIA
Efficient, economical, quick, safe, and without question the most fun to drive, the Giulia is a car we’re willing to gamble on despite its reliability legacy and lack of cost-of -ownership data.
|2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia||2017 Audi A4 2.0T quattro||2017 BMW 330i|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front-engine, RWD||Front-engine, AWD||Front-engine, RWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged I-4, iron block/alum head||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||SOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||121.6 cu in/1,993 cc||121.1 cu in/1,984 cc||121.9 cu in/1,998 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||280 hp @ 5,200 rpm||252 hp @ 5,000 rpm||248 hp @ 5,200 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||306 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm||273 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm||258 lb-ft @ 1,450 rpm|
|REDLINE||6,100 rpm||6,800 rpm||6,500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.3 lb/hp||14.4 lb/hp||14.3 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||8-speed automatic||7-speed twin-clutch auto.||8-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F; R||13.0-in vented disc; 12.5-in vented disc, ABS||13.3-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS||13.4-in vented disc; 13.6-in disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||8.0 x 18-in cast aluminum||8.0 x 18 in cast aluminum||8.0 x 18-in cast aluminum|
Pirelli Cinturato P7
Hankook Ventus S1 Evo2
|225/45R18 91V (M+S)
Continental ContiProContact SSR RSC
|WHEELBASE||111.0 in||111.0 in||110.6 in|
|TRACK, F/R||61.3/63.9 in||61.9/61.2 in||60.3/61.9 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||182.6 x 73.7 x 56.5 in||186.1 x 72.5 x 56.2 in||182.8 x 71.3 x 56.3 in|
|TURNING CIRCLE||37.5 ft||38.1 ft||37.1 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3,456 lb||3,636 lb||3,537 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||50/50%||56/44%||51/49%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.6/37.6 in||38.9/37.4 in||40.3/37.7 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||42.4/35.1 in||41.3/35.7 in||42.0/35.1 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||56.1/53.6 in||55.9/54.5 in||55.1/55.1 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||13.4 cu ft||13.0 cu ft||17.0 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||1.9 sec||1.7 sec||2.0 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||2.4||2.7||2.9|
|QUARTER MILE||13.6 sec @ 103.7 mph||13.7 sec @ 100.4 mph||14.2 sec @ 98.5 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||123 ft||115 ft||123 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.84 g (avg)||0.87 g (avg)||0.88 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||26.8 sec @ 0.67 g (avg)||25.7 sec @ 0.74 g (avg)||26.1 sec @ 0.71 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1,650 rpm||1,350 rpm||1,800 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$43,940||$48,725||$46,495|
|AIRBAGS||8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee||10: Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee||8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||4 yrs/Unlimited miles||4 yrs/Unlimited miles||4 yrs/Unlimited miles|
|FUEL CAPACITY||15.3 gal||15.3 gal||15.8 gal|
|REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB||28.2/37.9/31.8 mpg**||23.8/31.8/26.8 mpg||24.7/33.9/28.1 mpg|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON||24/33/27 mpg||24/31/27 mpg||23/34/27 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||140/102 kW-hrs/100 miles||140/109 kW-hrs/100 miles||147/99 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.71 lb/mile||0.73 lb/mile||0.72 lb/mile|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium|
|** Provisional pre-production vehicle results|
|2017 Cadillac ATS 2.0T||2017 Jaguar XE 25t (Prestige)|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front-engine, RWD||Front-engine, RWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||121.9 cu in/1,998 cc||122.0 cu in/1,999 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||272 hp @ 5,500 rpm*||240 hp @ 5,500 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||295 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm*||251 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpm|
|REDLINE||6,500 rpm||6,500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.8 lb/hp||15.3 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||8-speed automatic||8-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F; R||12.6-in vented, grooved disc; 12.4-in vented, grooved disc, ABS||12.8-in vented disc; 12.8-in vented disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||8.0 x 18-in cast aluminum||7.5 x 18-in cast aluminum|
Michelin Primacy MXM4
|225/45R18 95H M+S
Continental ProContact GX
|WHEELBASE||109.3 in||111.6 in|
|TRACK, F/R||59.5/60.9 in||63.1/63.1 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||182.8 x 71.1 x 55.9 in||184.5 x 72.8 x 56.1 in|
|TURNING CIRCLE||36.4 ft||38.4 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3,473 lb||3,675 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||51/49%||50/50%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.6/36.8 in||37.0/37.0 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||42.5/33.5 in||41.5/35.0 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||55.2/53.9 in||56.8/54.7 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||10.4 cu ft||14.7 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||1.9 sec||2.4 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||2.9||3.3|
|QUARTER MILE||14.2 sec @ 98.3 mph||15.0 sec @ 94.0 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||115 ft||123 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.87 g (avg)||0.86 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||26.0 sec @ 0.71 g (avg)||26.4 sec @ 0.70 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1,800 rpm||1,850 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$45,930||$50,458|
|AIRBAGS||8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee||6: Dual front, front side, f/r head|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||5 yrs/60,000 miles|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||6 yrs/70,000 miles||5 yrs/60,000 miles|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||6 yrs/70,000 miles||5 yrs/60,000 miles|
|FUEL CAPACITY||16.0 gal||16.6 gal|
|REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB||23.4/32.2/26.7 mpg||23.1/29.6/25.6 mpg|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON||22/31/25 mpg||21/30/24 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||153/109 kW-hrs/100 miles||160/112 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.77 lb/mile||0.80 lb/mile|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium|
|** Provisional pre-production vehicle results|
|2017 Lexus IS 200t F Sport||2017 Mercedes-Benz C300 (Sport)||2017 Volvo S60 T6 AWD (R-Design Platinum)|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front-engine, RWD||Front-engine, RWD||Front-engine, AWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbo- & s’charged I-4 alum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||121.9 cu in/1,998 cc||121.5 cu in/1,991 cc||120.2 cu in/1,969 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||241 hp @ 5,800 rpm||241 hp @ 4,000 rpm||306 hp @ 5,500 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||258 lb-ft @ 1,650 rpm||273 lb-ft @ 1,300 rpm||317 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm|
|REDLINE||6,200 rpm||6,300 rpm||6,500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||15.7 lb/hp||14.6 lb/hp||12.5 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||8-speed automatic||7-speed automatic||8-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F; R||13.2-in vented disc; 12.2-in vented disc, ABS||13.0-in vented, drilled disc; 11.8-in vented disc, ABS||16.5-in vented disc; 11.9-in vented disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||8.0 x 18-in; 8.5 x 18-in cast aluminum||7.5 x 19-in; 8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 19-in cast aluminum|
|TIRES||225/40R18 88Y; 255/35R18 90Y
Bridgestone Turanza ER33
|225/40R19 93Y; 255/35R19 96Y
Continental ContiSportContact5 SSR
Bridgestone Potenza S001
|WHEELBASE||110.2 in||111.8 in||109.3 in|
|TRACK, F/R||60.4/60.6 in||61.5/60.9 in||62.5/62.4 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||184.3 x 71.3 x 56.3 in||184.5 x 71.3 x 56.8 in||182.5 x 73.5 x 58.4 in|
|TURNING CIRCLE||34.2 ft||36.8 ft||37.1 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3,783 lb||3,512 lb||3,816 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||53/47%||53/47%||61/39%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.2/36.9 in||37.1/37.1 in||39.3/37.4 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||44.8/32.2 in||41.7/35.2 in||41.9/33.5 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||55.9/53.4 in||55.0/54.5 in (est)||57.0/55.2 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||10.8 cu ft||12.6 cu ft||12.0 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.4 sec||1.9 sec||1.8 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||3.7||3.2||2.7|
|QUARTER MILE||15.4 sec @ 89.9 mph||14.5 sec @ 96.1 mph||13.8 sec @ 101.0 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||118 ft||105 ft||111 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.88 g (avg)||0.91 g (avg)||0.84 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||26.3 sec @ 0.69 g (avg)||25.7 sec @ 0.71 g (avg)||26.9 sec @ 0.66 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1,800 rpm||2,050 rpm||1,800 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$45,885||$44,580||$51,110|
|AIRBAGS||10: Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee||7: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee||6: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||6 yrs/70,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||4 yrs/unlimited miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/unlimited miles|
|FUEL CAPACITY||17.4 gal||17.4 gal||17.8 gal|
|REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB||20.4/31.1/24.2 mpg **||22.0/32.1/25.7 mpg||23.1/29.8/25.7 mpg|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON||22/32/26 mpg||24/34/28 mpg||22/32/26 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||153/105 kW-hrs/100 miles||140/99 kW-hrs/100 miles||153/105 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.76 lb/mile||0.70 lb/mile||0.76 lb/mile|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium|
|** Provisional pre-production vehicle results|