Tested: 2009 Performance Convertible Comparison

Fourth Place: Chevrolet Corvette

A dead-duck fourth-place finish would seem contrary to the Corvette’s recent history of strong finishes in our comparison tests. But removing its roof results in less structural rigidity than the newer competition has. And don’t blame it all on the thrashing this car took in its life as a rental sled, evidenced by a few rattles in the dash and squeaky brakes.

The Corvette’s stock suspension and tires deserve some blame for the lackluster 0.83 g on the skidpad. We usually test Corvettes with either the Z51 handling package or the MagnaRide adjustable suspension, and both of those come with sticky Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar run-flat tires in lieu of the longer-lasting Eagle F1 GS-2s. A slop-free steering rack drew praise, but the Vette’s handling is compromised by an abrupt limit in tire grip that left us shying away from exploring the edge of adhesion. Boasting the longest and widest overall dimensions of the group, with a wheelbase more than 10 inches longer than the Boxster’s, the Chevy felt unwieldy on California’s tight coastal roads. The suspension handles minor bumps without upset, but the residual vibrations can be felt through the whole car.

HIGHS: Glorious engine, straight-line speed, nifty head-up display.
LOWS: Chassis flex, slow-reacting slushbox, rental-car interior.

Where the Corvette does impress is in a straight line. It tied for quickest in the 0-to-60-mph sprint and just ran away in the quarter-mile. That was expected, with the second-lightest curb weight and 430 horsepower—120 more than the Porsche. The small-block V-8 repeatedly surprised us with its soulful rumble and the way it makes power throughout the rev range.

That said, this rental Vette had a slow-shifting automatic transmission that insisted on choosing high gears even in sport mode. Manual shifts provide a way to work around this problem, but they must be done well ahead of turning into a corner, lest a delayed reaction causes the gear­change to occur midway through the curve. Plus, the tall gearing in first severely limits burnout potential, and what’s a Corvette that can’t smoke its rear tires on command? Our advice is to stick with the stick shift and save $1250.

Previous comparison tests have pitted the Corvette against more expensive competition, which allowed us to forgive the cheap plastic and dated readouts of this car’s interior. But the price excuse vanishes when the Corvette is pitted against cars with similar window stickers. Our test Vette came with the $6550 3LT package, which includes a power top and a heads-up display, but at this price, we expect more than manual-reclining seats. GM has nicer interiors in lesser-priced cars, and the Corvette needs to do better. When this generation was new, we praised Chevy for improving the Vette’s cabin materials, but it still has a long way to go before it earns any unqualified compliments.

THE VERDICT: A sledgehammer among ice picks.

As noted, this softtop is not a ZR1, and four years into its product cycle, the convertible version of one of our favorite sports cars is very noticeably aged.

2009 Chevrolet Corvette
430-hp V-8, 6-speed automatic, 3300 lb
Trunk volume, top up/down: 10/7 cu ft
Roof down/up: 17/20 sec
Base/as-tested price: $54,170/$62,720
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 4.3 sec
100 mph: 9.6 sec
1/4 mile: 12.6 @ 116 mph
Braking, 70­–0 mph: 171 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 15 mpg

Third Place: Audi TTS

We fully expected the Audi’s three competitors to smoke the TTS, and they did—in a straight line. The Audi has the second-highest curb weight—180 pounds more than the Boxster S—and the lowest power output of this gang, which is a recipe for slow acceleration. All-wheel drive and a quick-shifting dual-clutch transmission make the best of the situation, but the TTS’s 0-to-60 time of 5.6 seconds (0.8 second behind the TTS coupe’s) is still well off the pace.

When we left the highway and started bombing down back roads, however, the TTS not only kept up with the others, it did so with relative ease. The way the engine responds willingly above 5000 rpm belies its on-paper performance, but the Audi’s real advantage is its handling. Second-best skidpad and braking figures—0.93 g and 160 feet from 70 mph—only tell part of the story. Surprisingly neutral handling and brakes that refuse to fade make the TTS both fast and forgiving. Even in sport mode, the magnetic shocks offer the best combination of ride and handling: always firm and never harsh. That said, the car’s short wheelbase means it occasionally bobs over some stretches of wavy highway concrete.

Our other complaint is the transmission’s slow response from rest. Press the gas, wait for the clutch to engage, and then wait for the turbo to spool up. The process leaves plenty of time to contemplate your mortality while attempting to pull out into traffic. And there are no aural delights to be found in the subdued engine note, unless you find the occasional psshh from the turbo-blowoff valve particularly appealing.

The TTS is comfortable, with a spacious cabin, the largest trunk with the top down (the Porsche’s greater cargo volume is split between two compartments), and a power wind blocker. But the windowsills and the dashboard feel like they’re at neck level. You sit in the TTS as if in a bathtub, though large side mirrors aid in outward visibility. And a note to Audi designers: We don’t all drink Red Bull, so please allow both cup holders to accommodate a 20-ounce soda bottle.

The power deficit in the TTS will be answered by the 340-hp TT RS (as yet, an uncertain import here) and its significant price premium. After driving the TTS, we’re not sure much improvement is necessary.

2009 Audi TTS
265-hp inline-4, 6-speed automatic, 3400 lb
Trunk volume, top up/down: 9/9 cu ft
Roof down/up: 10/12 sec
Base/as-tested price: $48,325/$55,550
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.6 sec
100 mph: 14.5 sec
1/4 mile: 14.2 @ 99 mph
Braking, 70­–0 mph: 160 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.93 g
C/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

Second Place: BMW Z4

It’s hard to stop looking at the Z4. It’s a pretty car, and the mixture of creases and curves resolves pleasingly with the roof in place or folded down. The BMW has the only folding hardtop in the group and, as a result, the quietest cabin. The penalty is extra curb weight—it’s the heaviest, at 3520 pounds—and a cargo hold that is mostly used up by the stowed top. The heft is compensated for by BMW’s familiar 300-hp, twin-turbo inline-six, and just like the 1- and 3-series cars, the Z4 offers right-now responsiveness. It also tied the Porsche for the best observed fuel economy over our 550-mile test, equaling its EPA city rating of 17 mpg. Its smooth-shifting manual transmission testifies to why we will always love changing gears with three limbs, even if the procedure isn’t as idiot-proof as with the dual-clutch boxes in the Audi and the Porsche.

HIGHS: Gorgeous styling inside and out, twin-turbo six continues to impress.
LOWS: Vague steering and odd suspension tuning are more suited to semi-relaxed driving.

The BMW’s smart exterior looks are matched inside, especially with the $2050 Ivory White Extended Leather package. Surfaces that are not leather are finished in high-quality plastics. Even the high-resolution, widescreen LCD for the navigation system gives off high-end vibes. BMW’s latest iDrive controller comes bundled with the nav package; non-nav versions have a storage bin in place of the LCD. The cosseting cabin comes at a price: $2500 for the Premium package (includes power seats), another $500 for heated seats, $2000 for premium sound, and $1900 for the Sport package.

The Sport package adds high-performance tires, sport seats, and the M adaptive suspension, which varies the shock absorbers among three settings. Unfortunately, it doesn’t add enough sport to the Z4. In the most comfortable setting, “normal,” the Z4 rides like it has taffy for dampers. Highway cruising is supremely comfortable, but cornering requires the stiffer “sport” or “sport plus” modes. In any situation, the Z4 has an abundance of body roll, and the steering supplements its artificial weight with a lack of feedback. In tight corners, the Z4 starts to understeer before the front end finally bites, requiring a steering correction. On curvier roads, the Z4 takes more effort to drive as quickly as the Audi and the Porsche but returns less enjoyment. This car’s electric parking brake shows BMW’s true intentions here. Our beloved “hand-brake revectoring” is simply not in the game plan. There’s plenty of luxury, but we found ourselves wishing for a little more sport.

THE VERDICT: A luxury convertible with sporting pretensions.