The Cheapest New Crossovers and SUVs of 2022

Plenty Of PowerPictured: Mazda CX-50More To Come

We like our comparison tests to come to definitive conclusions, but that didn't happen with this one. Instead, in pitting the all-new 2022 Toyota Tundra against the bestselling Ford F-150, it came down to weighing the details. For example: One of these pickup trucks has a better engine, the other a better transmission. One has a better-looking interior; the other offers better functionality. Even the back seat factors into the equation: One has a better seat, the other smarter floor storage. We did manage to pick a winner, but only by the slimmest of margins. If you were to purchase the truck we deemed the lesser of the two, we certainly wouldn't say you bought the wrong one.But enough preamble, let's meet our players. For this particular test, we decided to sample workaday, lower-trim versions of these full-size trucks. Both featured crew cabs, short boxes, and four-wheel drive. Toyota sent along a 2022 Tundra Limited equipped with the TRD Off-Road package and a handful of other useful stand-alone options that added up to a $60,188 sticker. Ford supplied an F-150 XLT, the truck's one-up-from-the-bottom trim, which was priced at $58,575 and fitted with two key options—Ford's Max Trailer Tow package and the 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V-6. (The truck Ford sent was a 2021, but the 2022 F-150 is functionally identical.)Tundra vs. F-150: A Closer Look, Outside and InAt first glance, the Ford F-150 is the slightly better-looking truck in our eyes. It appears relaxed and sure of itself, whereas the Tundra is styled like it has something to prove. Although we appreciate the creases in its sheetmetal, we can't avert our gaze from the Tundra's giant, gaping grille, which reminds us of a jet plane missing its nose cone. Out back, the Tundra's vertical taillights don't seem to be as integrated into the truck's overall design. That said, when it comes to the details, the Toyota appears more modern, with sequential LED turn signals where the lower-spec Ford makes do with incandescent bulbs. It's controversial to be sure, but the Tundra is definitely a product of the new decade, while the new-for-2021 F-150 could be 10 years old.It's a similar story inside. The Tundra's interior is more modern in execution, with its massive 14.0-inch infotainment screen (optional), handsomely sculpted vents, and wide piano-key switches (a good idea lifted from General Motors). The F-150's stereo, A/C, and steering wheel controls, with their dials and plastic buttons, look old-fashioned by comparison, but they're arguably easier to use. The F-150's interior has its share of cheap plastics, though the bulk of its dashboard appears to be built of higher-quality materials than the Tundra employs. Even the upholstery is a draw: Some of our testers thought the F-150's two-tone cloth was way more attractive and comfortable than the Tundra's faux leather. Others said Toyota's Sof-Tex is more upscale and wondered what possessed Ford to put cloth seats in a $58,575 truck.Both trucks feature giant center touchscreen infotainment interfaces, but the Toyota's is gianter—and although that's great for Apple CarPlay, we were surprised the Tundra only lets you display one system (audio, phone, navigation, settings) at a time, whereas the Ford will show, say, your tunes and a map simultaneously.We found the back seats to be roomy in both the F-150 and the Tundra, with lots of legroom and easy access through big doors, and both offer two types of USB ports (A and C) and a 120-volt outlet. The Tundra has the (marginally) more comfortable seat, with a longer bottom cushion that provides better thigh support and a more relaxed backrest angle. But with the seat bottoms folded up, the F-150's flat floor and fold-away storage bins (a $215 option) made it far more useful and flexible than the Tundra, which has a sizable transmission hump and hard, fixed plastic binnacles.Tundra vs. F-150: The DriveBoth of our test trucks were powered by twin-turbo V-6 engines—a 3.5-liter unit for the F-150 and a 3.4 for the Tundra (though Toyota's sales literature says otherwise). Note, however, that the EcoBoost engine is a $2,595 option in the Ford; standard power is a 3.3-liter non-turbo V-6 with half as much torque. The Toyota, meanwhile, gets twin-turbo power as standard. (Both the Tundra and F-150 are available with an optional hybrid powertrain, but only Ford offers a V-8.)The F-150 provides a lot of go for the extra dough. Although its 400 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque bests the Toyota by only 11 hp and 21 lb-ft, the aluminum-bodied F-150 weighs a quarter-ton less than the Tundra. In addition, both come standard with a 3.31:1 rear axle, but our Ford test truck came with no-cost optional 3.55:1 gearing, which the Tundra doesn't offer. All of the above gave the F-150 a serious speed advantage: We clocked the Ford from 0 to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds, which is almost a full second quicker than the Tundra. And Ford's EPA fuel economy numbers measure 1 mpg better in city, highway, and combined measurements. Out on the open road, the Ford felt like the more powerful truck, and it delivered slightly better fuel economy during our testing.But that doesn't necessarily mean the Ford's powertrain is a far superior choice. The 2022 Tundra's 10-speed automatic transmission proved to be the better actor, shifting up and down promptly and smoothly. On one narrow, hilly section of our test route, the Tundra knew intuitively which gear to pick; prodding the F-150's accelerator on the same stretch resulted in a delay and a lurch while it tried to find the right ratio.Tundra vs. F-150: Ride and HandlingThe suspension is one area where Ford pulled definitively ahead. Neither of these pickup trucks will ever be mistaken for an old-school Lincoln Town Car, but the F-150 provided a smoother ride, while the Tundra felt jittery even over moderate bumps. When the pavement got slightly worse, the Tundra's ride got a lot worse, deteriorating much more quickly than the F-150's ride quality. This was somewhat surprising, given the Toyota's rear coil springs and lower payload rating relative to the leaf-sprung Ford.The Ford's steering felt light and a bit numb, making the truck easy, if not exactly enjoyable, to maneuver. But it steered better than the Tundra, which felt less precise and wandered more on the highway. Both trucks have adaptive cruise control with lane centering, and although the Ford guided itself accurately, the Tundra had a harder time staying centered, an experience shared by its human drivers. Keep in mind that our test Tundra came with the $3,085 TRD Off-Road package featuring stiffer shocks and softer all-terrain tires. Without this package, the Toyota might well have had better ride and steering qualities.Tundra vs. F-150: Getting Into BedUnlike the F-150, the Tundra doesn't have a spray-in bedliner, but it doesn't need one: The Tundra's bed is a plastic composite, which is virtually indestructible. There's nothing wrong with a metal bed like the Ford's, but it's eventually going to show the dents and scars of hard use. That won't be the case with the Tundra. Both trucks have tie-downs in the bed walls; the Ford's are fixed, while the Tundra offers both fixed and movable points.Our Tundra test truck had a $385 power package that included 400-watt outlets in the bed and a Qi wireless phone charger in the cab, which our F-150 lacked. Ford offers 400-watt plugs for $290, but our truck came instead with the $995 ProPower Onboard package capable of 2,000 watts. The Toyota also had a retractable tailgate step, but evetesn with it deployed, our shorter testers faced a steep climb into the bed. Speaking of steep, that little step costs a whopping $399. Unlike the Toyota, our F-150 didn't come with any tailgate assistance features as equipped. Ford does offer a quality tailgate step of its own for the F-150, but it's only included as part of the $695 power tailgate package, which was missing from our truck. (Perhaps it was a good thing given what we discovered in our last full-size pickup comparison.)Tundra vs. F-150: Towing and HaulingIn terms of truck capabilities, Ford is the clear winner. Our Tundra, as equipped, had a maximum payload of 1,740 pounds and a towing capacity of 11,120 pounds. The Ford, meanwhile, offered a 2,100-pound payload capacity and, with its Max Trailering package, a towing capacity of 13,900 pounds. But even with a lesser trailering package, the F-150 would still out-tow the Tundra by 180 pounds. Capacity and skill are separate things, though. We've always found the F-150 to be a stable towing platform, and the Tundra proved just as competent at hauling our high-profile two-horse trailer.We're big fans of Ford's optional Pro Trailer Backup Assist system, and we were eager to try Toyota's version, called Straight Path Assist. The key difference between the two is that the F-150 allows the driver to steer the trailer in reverse with a dial on the dashboard, but the Tundra only keeps the trailer going straight. With Straight Path Assist, once you get the trailer pointed where you want it, you can let go of the wheel and the Tundra will steer itself in an attempt to keep the trailer going in the same direction. The Tundra did a pretty good job of keeping the trailer going straight, but really, that's only half the battle—getting the trailer pointed in the right direction is the real struggle for novice trailer-backers. Ford's system (as well as Ram's Trailer Reverse Steering) alleviates 95 percent of the anxiety of backing up a trailer; the Toyota, maybe 50 percent. We're baffled as to why Toyota didn't build a complete trailer-backing solution.Let's Pick a Winner Already!We suspected from our first test loop that this was going to be a close competition, and we weren't disappointed. Toyota clearly benchmarked the bestselling F-150 when developing its new Tundra, and it followed very closely in the Ford's tire tracks.But in the end, the Ford managed to stay out front, if only by a bumper length or two. The F-150 is the better and more comfortable truck to drive (though a Tundra with the non-TRD suspension might be able to close that gap). The Ford's interior is marginally nicer and easier to use, and the F-150's back seat, though not quite as comfortable as the Toyota's, offers more flexibility for carrying other-than-human cargo. We like the Tundra's tough composite bed, but the Ford carries a lot more cargo. Both trucks are competent tow vehicles, but the Ford has more capacity and a better trailer-backing system. And although the Tundra has more modern styling details, the F-150 has a look we think will age better—indeed, it already seems to be doing so.Toyota fans might be disappointed to learn that the new Tundra generation is short of class-leading; in our estimation, that title still belongs to the Ram 1500. But in the full-size pickup field, where breaking into the Chevy-Ford-Ram triumvirate is a near-impossible task, playing follow the leader is perhaps the smartest move—and the 2022 Toyota Tundra is definitely following the Ford F-150 very, very closely.Second Place: 2022 Toyota Tundra LimitedPros:Powerful twin-turbo engine comes standardDurable composite bedComfortable back seatCons:Bumpy ride with TRD packageHalf-baked trailer-backing systemGiant center screen not used to its best advantageFirst Place: 2021 Ford F-150 XLTPros:Comfortable, if not exactly thrilling, to driveBroad choice of powertrains and axle ratiosHigh payload and towing capacity when properly equippedCons:Uncomfortable back seatRough-shifting transmissionCloth seats and incandescent bulbs? In a $60K truck?POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2021 Ford F-150 XLT 4x4 Specifications 2022 Toyota Tundra Limited TRD Offroad 4x4 Specifications DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD Front-engine, 4WD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, alum block/heads Twin-turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, alum block/heads DISPLACEMENT 3,497 cc/213.4 cu in 3,445 cc/210.2 cu in COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1 10.4:1 POWER (SAE NET) 400 hp @ 6,000 rpm 389 hp @ 5,200 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 500 lb-ft @ 3,100 rpm 479 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm REDLINE 6,250 rpm 5,800 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 13.4 lb/hp 15.0 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic 10-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE/LOW RATIO 3.55:1/2.26:1/2.64:1 3.31:1/2.02:1/2.64:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, leaf springs Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 17.4:1 16.9:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.2 3.3 BRAKES, F; R 13.8-in vented disc; 13.8-in vented disc 13.9-in vented disc; 13.6-in vented disc WHEELS 8.5 x 20-in cast aluminum 8.5 x 20-in cast aluminum TIRES 275/60R20 115T Pirelli Scorpion ATR (M+S) 265/60R20 112H Falken Wildpeak A/T AT3WA (M+S) DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 145.1 in 145.7 in TRACK, F/R 67.9/68.3 in 68.4/68.4 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 231.7 x 79.9 x 77.2 in 233.6 x 80.2 x 78.0 in GROUND CLEARANCE 9.4 in 9.4 in APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE 24.6/25.4 deg 21.0/24.0 deg TURNING CIRCLE 47.8 ft 48.6 ft CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) 5,345 lb (58/42%) 5,820 lb (57/43%) SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 40.8/40.4 in 41.0/38.5 in LEGROOM, F/R 43.9/43.6 in 41.2/41.6 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 66.7/66.0 in 65.0/62.4 in PICKUP BOX L x W x H 78.9 x 65.2 x 21.4 in 65.6 x 58.7 x 20.9 in CARGO BOX VOLUME 62.3 cu ft 48.8 cu ft WIDTH BET WHEELHOUSES 50.6 in 48.7 in CARGO LIFT-OVER HEIGHT 35.0 in 34.6 in PAYLOAD CAPACITY 2,100 lb 1,740 lb TOWING CAPACITY 13,900 lb 11,120 lb TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.8 sec 2.0 sec 0-40 2.9 3.3 0-50 4.0 4.6 0-60 5.3 6.2 0-70 6.9 8.1 0-80 8.9 10.3 0-90 11.2 13.1 0-100 13.9 16.2 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.6 3.2 QUARTER MILE 13.9 sec @ 99.9 mph 14.7 sec @ 95.3 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 126 ft 135 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.76 g (avg) 0.72 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.0 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) 28.5 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,450 rpm* 1,700 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $45,850 $56,680 PRICE AS TESTED $59,520 $60,188 AIRBAGS 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 miles 3 yrs/36,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/60,000 miles 2 yrs/25,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 36.0 gal 32.2 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 18/23/20 mpg 17/22/19 mpg EPA RANGE, COMB 720 mi 612 mi RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded regular ON SALE Now Now *Truck will not select 10th gear at 60; 1,800 in eighth is the natural powertrain condition at this speed. Show All

To the surprise of the few and the horror of those trying to purchase one for sticker price, the 2022 Porsche 911 GT3 is MotorTrend's 2022 Performance Vehicle of the Year. The competition was fierce for this year's inaugural award, but in the end most of the judges voted for the GT3. The two who didn't score it first had Porsche's latest and greatest in second place—quite a close second place, at that. And yes, the word "greatest" is apropos here. That is, until the next GT3 iteration drops—which should be any time now. Why so dominant, why so loved, why so great? Several reasons, but first let's go backward.We considered ourselves fortunate to attend the launch of the old 991.2 911 GT3 in Spain back in 2017. Fortunate not only because that GT3 generation (the new GT3 is the 992.1) was magnificent but also because attendees got to chase rally legend Walter Röhrl around a racetrack for five laps. Life was good. On a personal note, I mention this because I distinctly remember writing this next part before I drove the 991.2 version: "[The 991.1] GT3 marked the first time in my career I had nothing negative to say about a vehicle." Followed by, "I don't have the foggiest idea how the wizards of [Weissach] can make the GT3 any better than it already is. Although I suspect Porsche will tell me once I get to Spain."In other words, it was impossible to conceive how Porsche could even kind of improve upon the already spectacular 991.1 GT3. But it sure did. Fast-forward to hours before the 2022 PVOTY competition began, and our judging panel collectively thought the same thing. Guess what? The unfathomable has been achieved. Again.A sampling of initial comments from meine Kollegen once they spun a turn behind the Porsche's wheel: "This is pure driving pleasure," features editor Scott Evans said. "Honestly, it's the only car that made me lose my breath." Features editor Christian Seabaugh added, "My gosh, this is such a good car." Deputy editor Alexander Stoklosa recounted, "I took this on two laps of the winding road circuit at the Hyundai Proving Ground, and by the time I exited, I was sweaty and feeling absolutely jacked, wanting more." Good thing for him we then went to the racetrack, no? Director of editorial operations Mike Floyd said, "Holy hell, this thing is amazing. Wow."Head of editorial Ed Loh went a bit cerebral trying to explain what's so great about the GT3: "It makes you feel sharper and more in tune with everything—from the soles of your feet to the pads of your fingertips, all the way to the base of your skull and the lizard part of your brain that ensures you don't die in your sleep." Executive editor Mac Morrison was more succinct, simply offering, "Sheeeeeezus H. Porsche. Maaaaannnnnnn."Yeah, friends, this car is absurdly great. It serves up unbelievable levels of performance paired with unbelievable levels of grip, head-ringing aural thrills thanks to a 502-hp humdinger of a 4.0-liter naturally aspirated flat-six that revs all the way to 9,000 rpm, and perhaps most important, the best manual transmission in automotive history. Hashtag fight us. Did we mention the gobs and bushels and duffel bags full of both horsepower and revs? Perhaps the 992 GT3 is not as laser-guided or quick as the other two big wingers present (the Lamborghini Huracán STO and the Mercedes-AMG GT Black Series), a whole host of McLarens, or even Porsche's own upcoming GT3 RS. However, this car boasts a solidity, an everyday ease of use, and the resulting desire to just drive it more and more that separates the GT3 from the rest of the frontrunners for this year's PVOTY trophy. The 2022 911 GT3 is a deeply satisfying sports car that just so happens to have supercar reflexes.But what about the criteria? Oh yes, we are fully aware that transitioning away from our old Best Driver's Car competition to one of our signature Of The Year formats means any winner is subjected to our six key criteria. In case this is your first time, they are: Advancement in Design, Engineering Excellence, Performance of Intended Function, Safety, Value, and Efficiency. Even when keeping every one of these in mind when picking our winner, the Porsche excels. Hell, forget excels; the GT3 dominates.Advancement in DesignThis one is as simple as … just look at it. At first glance and across but two dimensions, you may not "get" the nostrils on the GT3's hood. We assure you the two speed holes (they're actually part of the car's aerodynamics, similar to openings on the Lamborghini Aventador SVJ) grow on you after repeated viewings. Back to the launch of the old 991.2 GT3, I'll never forget something Porsche GT-division boss Andy Preuninger said during the press conference: "The GT3 has to be the most attractive 911." Targa fans might disagree, but the newest GT3 looks fabulous, even in muted orange sherbet (actual color name: Lava Orange). And that wing! A piece of functional sculpture. Anyone opting for the wingless GT3 Touring version is nuts. Ahem.We also loved the interior's design, specifically the well-executed sparseness. Countless gallons of ink have been spilled, both actual and virtual, rightly chastising Tesla for that brand's signature near lack of an interior, but the GT3 isn't that. No, this car's guts represent minimalism done right. "I love how simple it is inside—just get in and go," Stoklosa said. "There's a button for ESC, one for the shocks, and that's pretty much it. No fiddling, all fun." Yes, you get right down to business inside the GT3, the business of woohoo!Loh was particularly impressed. "The control layout is awesome," he said. "It's not as spaceship-weirdo-wild-looking as the Huracán STO. It's also not as plasticky as the AMG GT. I'm Goldilocks, and this supercar is juuuust riiiiight. Love the seats, love this vehicle. Awesome."Not only is the layout awesome, but the controls themselves also inspire awe. We've only partially told you about the fabulous gear lever. One reason it's so spot on is that the transmission's synchros are made from brass, not plastic; when you shift gears, you're actually pushing metal through metal. So cool. But just holding the stick feels wicked. The clutch is perfectly weighted, too. Porsche truly nailed the small stuff. "It's a little thing, but I love the steering wheel," Seabaugh said. "It's a dinky little 7/8ths-sized thing that just feels perfect in your hands." Amen.Engineering ExcellenceThe criteria's lines are easy to blur. For instance, the stick shift bleeds over from Advancement of Design into Engineering Excellence. So be it. As associate road test editor Erick Ayapana asked, "Why can't all shifters be like this?" It's no shock to say the latest from Porsche's freaking racing division—after all, that's what the GT crew does—is excellently engineered. But, brothers, sisters, this is one of those hard-to-overstate situations.As an example, let's look at the car's grip. We were impressed. "The amount of mechanical grip, aided at times by the aero, is stupefying," Morrison said. "Like, it's just criminal, and I use that word as a positive. You should not be able to drive the front end into corners as hard as you can, and you should not be able to go back to power so hard and early and easily as the new GT3 allows you to."Want to talk brakes? Evans does. "The brake feel is the real accomplishment here, and that's saying something," he said. "You can feel exactly how hard the pads are biting at every moment, intuit exactly how much braking you're using and how much you have left in reserve." Road test editor Chris Walton added, "The brakes are nuclear."Grip and brakes, that's just tires, right? Well, partially, sure, but we promise you that while slapping the GT3's sticky Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R N0s on your car will improve its performance, the GT3 is better engineered. It pulled 1.19 g (average) on our skidpad, tying it with the 2019 911 GT2 RS for the highest average number we've ever recorded. Its figure-eight time was just 0.2 second off the 720-hp AMG GT Black Series, a car that makes 218 extra horsepower. And the GT3 beat the incredible 630-hp Lambo STO here by 0.2. If that's not engineering excellence, what is?Performance of Intended FunctionThe 911 GT3 crushes this category. This is the part where we break down both what a GT3 is and what makes a Performance Vehicle of the Year. Starting with the 911, it's the sportier, racier, harder-core, no-compromise version. And the 911 is a hell of a sports car to start with. From that not so humble origin point, the wizards and witches of Flacht work their magic, transforming a superlative sports car into an everyday supercar. Yes, supercar, because the GT3 certainly is.The ride isn't soft, but you can live with this car. "Old dudes like me might have some trouble with ingress and egress," Floyd said, "but once you get yourself snug in the seat, you can easily drive the GT3 all day in slow traffic or on a long highway stretch. The clutch pedal action doesn't punish your left leg, and loping around town is a breeze."You simply can't say the same about either the STO or the Black Series. Everyday? Maybe every track day, and even that's a stretch. For instance, assuming your head isn't too big, you might be able to fit your helmet—just one—into the Lambo's frunk. Emphasis on "might." The Black Series, while deeply impressive, is really just a bridge too far for a street car. The GT3? Let's just say we understand why people are paying $50,000 more than sticker for a street car that can also rip up a racetrack."It's just a joy to drive hard on a circuit, which is what the GT3 is absolutely made to do," Floyd said. "It's so obvious how long Porsche has been developing this car and the 911 in general. There's a next-level feel you just don't get with the Huracán or GT Black." In other words, it's a special 911 doing precisely what its maker intended. Talk about performance of intended function, indeed. That alone makes it a great candidate for Performance Vehicle of the Year.ValueIncome inequality must be causing mass psychosis for us to say a car with a base price of $164,150 and an as-tested kitty of $195,850 is a great value, but humor us for a moment. When you consider the two cars in this test that most closely compete with the Porsche—the $355,595 AMG and the $442,033 Lamborghini—the GT3 looks like a steal. Toss on that $50,000 ADM (adjusted dealer markup), and the Porsche is still a steal.EfficiencyWe cannot, however, with a straight face tell you a car that carries an EPA rating of 16 mpg combined is efficient. But this is Performance Vehicle of the Year; none of the competitors was designed with astounding efficiency in mind. Additionally, the GT3's fuel economy is in line with the other contenders in its performance plane. Hot tip: Opt for the extended-range gas tank, and you'll feel as if you're getting great mileage.SafetyCars like the Porsche 911 never get crash ratings, never mind the GT3. That's just how it is. So we can't tell you about its passive safety worthiness. However, a car that superlatively grips and stops the way the GT3 does is inherently safe in the hands of a skilled driver. Oh, and we seem to remember it has adaptive cruise control, too.Dominant Winner WinsThere's so much more to say. We haven't mentioned the Davante Adams-like way the GT3 changes direction. Or the switch to a double control arm suspension up front. Or how for the first time in Porsche 911 history, you don't need to trail-brake your way into every corner, because (surprise!) the front suddenly has copious grip. The front end is like a race car, or as Seabaugh put it, "It digs hard into corners like a skate into ice." There's also the part about how with only 2 additional hp, the 992.1 GT3 is nearly 18 seconds quicker around the Nürburgring Nordschleife than the 991.2 GT3 it replaces. If only we could show you all the notes from all the judges, including our dedicated test team, just so you could see how consistently overwhelming the superlatives are. It's without end.Anything we don't like? Evans and Loh thought the ride quality was lacking, to the point Evans recommends never putting the dampers into Sport. Not everyone agreed with him. But that's about it for the negatives. Looking over my own notes, one line caught my eye: "If the GT3 isn't second place, it's first." As much as I and the rest of the judges loved the Porsche, the Lamborghini STO was also exceptional. But by a vote of five judges to two, the GT3 claimed the crown.EpilogueAfter the vote, and because I was the judge writing this winner story, I took the new Porsche 911 GT3 home for about a week. A friend of mine owns a 991.2 GT3 Touring; we decided to drive them back to back. I figured this new GT3 would be slightly better, but I quickly learned it's about 70 percent better. The 2022 model made the old one feel like a couch. I'm not kidding. And remember, this was a couch that at one point in time we said was the best-driving car in the world.If that's not enough, I'll leave you with something 20-year veteran auto scribe and motorsports/track-driving aficionado Morrison wrote in his notes. "This might sound nuts," he said, "but I thought hard about it for several days after our PVOTY activities concluded: I'm not sure I've ever driven a better car. In my entire career."Nicely played, Porsche, and congrats on winning the first MotorTrend Performance Vehicle of the Year award. Now comes the hard part: Do it again next year. As I wrote before about the 991.2 GT3, "How do you take something with no apparent flaws, no visible weaknesses, and improve upon it anyway?" None of us knows the answer, but we're sure Preuninger and the gang have some ideas. We can't wait to test them out.POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2022 Porsche 911 GT3 SPECIFICATIONS DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Rear-engine, RWD ENGINE TYPE Direct-injected DOHC 24-valve  flat-6, alum block/heads DISPLACEMENT 3,996 cc/243.9 cu in COMPRESSION RATIO 13.3:1 POWER (SAE NET) 502 hp @ 8,400 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 346 lb-ft @ 6,100 rpm REDLINE 9,000 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 6.4 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.09:1/2.72:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 11.2-14.2:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.4 BRAKES, F; R 16.1-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 15.4-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc WHEELS, F;R 9.5 x 20-in; 12.0 x 21-in forged aluminum TIRES, F;R 255/35R20 97Y; 315/30R21 105Y Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R N0 DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 96.7 TRACK, F/R 63.0/61.1 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 180.0 x 72.9 x 50.4 in TURNING CIRCLE 34.1 ft CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) 3,188 lb (40/60%) SEATING CAPACITY 2 HEADROOM, F/R 37.9/ — in LEGROOM, F/R 42.2/ — in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 52.6/ — in CARGO VOLUME 4.6 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.5 sec 0-40 2.0 0-50 2.8 0-60 3.4 0-70 4.2 0-80 5.2 0-90 6.2 0-100 7.3 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 1.5 QUARTER MILE 11.4 sec @ 126.0 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 93 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.19 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 22.1 sec @ 0.95 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 2,500 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $164,150 PRICE AS TESTED $195,850 AIRBAGS 8: Dual front, front side, front curtain, front knee BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 23.7 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 14/18/16 mpg RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium ON SALE Now Show All