Practice, patience perfect BMW M5’s sequential shifter
Automotive journalists drive vehicles, evaluate the pertinent data, and distill it into a valid opinions. Usually, we can make it stick by backing up our opinions with examples, if not hard evidence. But in the case of my recent review of the BMW M6, much as I enjoyed the car, I was flat wrong about one fairly harsh criticism. Many other reviewers I know made the same accusation, which offers me scarce satisfaction, because weÂ’ve perpetrated an error.
Me? IÂ’ve seen the light. Thanks to a week with the superb new 2007 BMW M5, which is possibly the quintessential high-performance sports sedan in the world. There are others, and some of them great competitors, but the M5 is right up there at the top.
First of all, critics of the 5-Series styling are hung up on the almost-cliched grumbles about the 7-Series, which were accurate grumbles, ranging from style to the needlessly complex “iDrive†control knob, although the styling curiosities have mostly been smoothed out sufficiently by now. The 5 corrected virtually all the disagreeable lines and even though it had some unusual contours and curves, I found it vastly more appealing. Same with the 3-Series, which followed. It’s better still, in my opinion.
But the 5 undergoes some significant tweaks to become the M5. Much more rigid, firmer suspension, little extra air-dams and a pair of dual exhausts tip off the exterior. New instrumentation and seats and trim alter the interior. But the key change is in the drivetrain – a 5-liter V10, which comes with more horsepower than anyone could use without drawing the attention of lawmen.
The actual count is 400, unless you push the little “power†button, in which case you get 500 horsepower. All of them set to gallop by a 7-speed automatic transmission that really isn’t just an automatic, but a sequential manual gearbox that wants to be manually shifted. If the gearbox sounds like it’s out of a Formul;a 1 racing production bin, so is the engine, if not the fantastic brakes, and suspension parts.
The M5 has the same drivetrain as the M6, which is a fabulous car, but with which I found fault because of the sequential manual gearbox (SMG). I noted that when I had the chance to drive the M6 hard, through the rolling hills around Elkhart Lake, Wis., and on the Road America road-racing track there, that the shifting was not at all satisfying,. I compared it to the smoother-shifting Mercedes, and the astoundingly quick-shifting Audi auto-manuals.
WeÂ’re talking here about automatic transmissions that can be shifted manually, without a clutch, by not only having a sport shift-gate to put the gear stalk into, but remote paddles on the steering wheel, which the driver can upshift of downshift at a touch without taking either hand of the wheel.
When driving the M6, and the superb Z4 M Coupe, I noted to a BMW press-fleet director that I had never driven the M5. Presto, within two weeks, a glistening blue M5 sedan appeared at my door. The sedanÂ’s inherent heft makes it less exotic than the sleek M6 Coupe, but together, they cover the market about as well as any cars costing from $81,000 to $95,000 could. The M5 starts at $81,895 and rises as the options mount. Obviously, this is not a car for ordinary buyers and drivers.
As I prepared to begin a week of test-driving of the car, I thought it over. BMW doesnÂ’t make many technical mistakes. Driven by an unyielding determination to enhance a driverÂ’s experience, not to intrude in it or obscure it, the company came up with a fantastic active steering system. Some magazine types criticized it, and a few still do, even though a direct comparison of the same car without active steering proves immediately the benefits of the system. It quickens the steering response as you go faster, or if you swerve dramatically. It is amazing how the system can virtually eliminate the corrections needed for similar swerves without it.
With that in mind, I reasoned that I would give BMW the benefit of the doubt with the SMG also, and assume that the difficulty and awkwardness I experienced in shifting the sequential manual gearbox could have been driver related, more than engineering related. Instead of starting out with a chip on my shoulder, I decided to try to adapt my driving to the car. Previously, I had driven hard, flipped the upshift switch and was frustrated with what seemed a 2-3 second delay before the shifter engaged the next gear. I had tried letting off slightly, letting off abruptly, and not letting off at all, but the delay was present no matter what I did.
Approaching the M5 with my new and revised attitude, I started up that wonderful-sounding V10 and shifted into the sport mode. I decided that rather than simulating a stick shift, I would shift it as though it were a stick shift car. With a manual transmission, you start up, then you let off the gas as you step on the clutch, shifting by hand at the same moment, or thereabouts, and then smoothly letting off the clutch as you gradually step on the gas.
{IMG2}
So I did that with the M5. I started up and accelerated a fair amount, then I let off what I imagined would be just about the right time span to declutch and reclutch, and as I let off the gas, I flipped the right-hand paddle – the one with the plus sign on it – then I stepped smoothly on the gas again. When I did that, I found that the car had smoothly moved up a gear. After about three or four shifts, I found that my rhythm was just right, and I could upshift with accurate control, or downshift, for that matter.
At that point, where my instincts tuned in to what the car wanted, needed, and demanded, shifting the SMG was entertaining and fun. Once I felt comfortable with it, I could then work on quickening my exchanges. Sure enough, letting off the gas quickly, as I snapped it up a gear, and stepping on it more quickly again, brought me quicker response and more fun.
As a seven-speed, you are pretty sure of always being in a proper ratio, and you rarely need to rev the V10 up over 7,000 RPMs It will rocket from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, but its exceptional brakes will also haul it down from 100 kilometers per hour to 0 in 2.6 seconds. With Electronic Driver Control, the driver can choose whether comfort, cruising or performance firmness is the objective. Active steering also contributes to the precision driving experience.
The iDrive is still there, but you can use voice commands to override it. Besides, such technical nitpicks shouldnÂ’t even enter the discussion of a car with such exhilarating performance.
Now, most sane folks would be more than happy driving a 530, which is the same sedan without the external tweaks, and with lessened – but still outstanding – brakes, suspension and power, with a 3-liter 6 instead of the 500-horsepower V10.
Then again, some uncompromising car-buyers want the utmost in potential power, handling, and overall performance. For those buyers, there are not many choices. The Mercedes AMG sedans do the job, and so do the Audis, from the S4 or S6 to the RS 4. They have gotten as good as they are mainly because they are attempting to keep up with the BMW M5.
And now there is an entirely new M5. And it is so good, drivers will have to concentrate on living up to the potential that the M5 offers.
New Santa Fe takes giant step for Hyundai design
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. — The 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe offers a giant styling step forward for the Korean automaker. Styling is a superficial way to judge a vehicle, and what is contained within all that stylish flair is more important, but style is just about the only place where the Santa FeÂ’s predecessor could be faulted.
The current Hyundai Santa Fe was a big sales success, and carved the Korean automaker an effective niche in the SUV world. But to me, it also described the shortcomings of the Korean car industry, primarily that its efficient, well-built bargains with strong durability were often lacking in styling logic and in refinement, that elusive and subjective quality.
Hyundai has upgraded all its vehicles, and while striving for excellence it has attained a top three initial quality rating from JD Power pollsters in every segment, except for the Santa Fe. The new model almost certainly assured Hyundai of running the table.
I donÂ’t mean to impugn the current Santa Fe owners. The vehicles took on an ever-improving look as time passed, and more and more of them appeared. But I didnÂ’t like the gratuitous fin-like humps on the front fenders, and the little contours and swoops that were added just to be added. To me, again, the Santa FeÂ’s styling shortcomings were amplified when the smaller Tucson came out, completely clean and sleek in style.
So now it’s the Santa Fe’s turn. Hyundai introduced the vehicle to the media in Santa Barbara, but denied it is planning a new model called the “Santa Barbara†which will be introduced in Santa Fe. After all, Hyundai also introduced the Tucson in Portland, but it never followed up with a “Portland†it could introduce in Tucson. But it’s a dry heat.
While reinventing its models from the smallest compact, up through the superb midsize Sonata, and the superlative full-size Azera, Hyundai has been worthy of credit for exceptional style, and for going well beyond the lure of the corporate 10-year, 100,000-mile warrantyÂ’s promise. While that powertrain warranty did much to raise the companyÂ’s standard since 1998, it is reinforced by HyundaiÂ’s claim that its warranty costs have dropped 50 percent in the last three years.
The midsize crossover SUV market is crowded with outstanding competitors, and Hyundai engineers benchmarked some of the best of them, such as the Toyota Highlander and RAV4, Honda Pilot, and domestics such as the Chevrolet Equinox and Ford Explorer and Escape.
Hyundai wanted to shoot high for Santa Fe development, so it also closely examined upscale models, such as the Lexus RX330, Acura MDX, Volvo XC90. It also mentioned comparisons with the newest and sportiest Acura RDX and Mazda CX-7, although such claims of sporty similarity with that pair might be more fanciful than accurate.
But the target of fulfilling the handling capabilities of a good midsize sedan, while also providing the interior room and flexibility for three rows of occupants, clearly is met by the new Santa Fe, which is 7 inches longer, 1 inch wider, 2 inches taller and with a track stance 2.9 inches wider when compared to the current vehicle.
The styling, however, remains the most compelling improvement to me. Built on an entirely new platform, and not on the new Sonata platform, the Santa Fe front end has a distinct grille opening, with very slick glass-encased headlights, with an outer lens that curves around the front corners of the car.
The side slopes gracefully from a “Z†shape at the front wheelwell on an upward sweep to the rear, without any of those humps, bulges and needless contours that marred the preceding model. The taillights are horizontal slashes that fit the scooped rear window. As the first venture from Hyundai’s new California design studio, the exterior styling is worth five stars, or an “A,†whatever tops your grading system.
Hyundai is also improving on its engine building. After years of making good copies of Mitsubishi engines, Hyundai has now stepped forward to advance its own engine creativity. When DaimlerChrysler brought out its 2007 Dodge Caliber, it entered a joint agreement with Mitsubishi and Hyundai on a new, world-class 4-cylinder engine project. The result, being built by Chrysler in Michigan, was actually designed by Hyundai, after a major revision when its first attempt was discarded.
That engine is not present in the Santa Fe, but two new engines are loaded with the latest technology, including variable valve-timing. Both the base 2.7 and upgraded 3.3 V6 engines match the previous displacement, but Hyundai officials insist both are entirely new. The 2.7 buyers can choose between a 5-speed stick or an optional 4-speed automatic, while the 3.3 selection gives you a 5-speed Shiftronic automatic, with a Borg-Warner electronic all-wheel-drive system that can lock in 50-50 front and rear torque.
For power, we won’t quibble, and fuel economy estimates are improved for both engines. The new 2.7 “Mu†engine has 185 horsepower (an increase of 15) and 183 foot-pounds of torque, with improved fuel economy estimates of 21 city/26 highway. The 3.3 “Lambda†engine has 242 horsepower and 226 foot-pounds of torque, an increase of 42 horsepower over the current engine, plus EPA fuel estimates of 19 city and 24 highway.
The new platform and body combine for a stiff shell that, overall, is 50 percent stiffer than the current Santa Fe, and, Hyundai claims, 59 percent stiffer than ToyotaÂ’s Highlander. McPherson strut front suspension with independent rear multilink handles the Santa Fe well, and all four corners get coil springs and gas-charged dampers.
Inside, blue backlighting of the instruments is impressive, and carries over to color-coding of the cupholders, and seatbelt buckles. Other interior surfaces are tastefully two-toned in either grey or beige.
Compared to the current model, the new Santa Fe is longer and taller, and it has such features as more third-row headroom than a Lexus RX even though itÂ’s 2.1 inches shorter overall. That fold-down third row seat also has better legroom than the Highlander, MDX, or XC90. The second seat tumbles forward and out of the way at a touch, for easy access to the third row, as well.
{IMG2}
John Kravcik, HyundaiÂ’s vice president for product development, makes a strong case for his companyÂ’s objectives. Among them is the safety of side airbags, but an even bigger emphasis is on stability control. Kravcik cited insurance industry findings that 34 percent of fatalities could be prevented by stability control systems, which can prevent loss of control and rollovers. ThatÂ’s 10,000 lives per year.
“Our Tucson was the first, and for 2006, 53 percent of our vehicles have stability control,†Kravcik said. “For 2007, with the Santa Fe introduction, 73 percent of Hyundais will have stability control.†For a not-too-subtle comparison, Kravcik produced a chart that shows competitor stability-control percentages as Honda’s 45, Volvo’s 35, and 20 percent for Toyota and General Motors.
On the Santa Fe, such attention to safety is underscored by standard 4-wheel disc brakes, with 4-channel and 4-sensor antilock and electronic brake distribution.
Perhaps most amazing is that with all the upgrades, the new Santa Fe has lowered prices at every model. The GLS starts at $21,595 with the 2.7 and front-wheel drive, the sportier SE starts at $24,295, and the top Limited model opens at $26,595 including leather and other premium interior touches.
Built in Hyundai’s Alabama plant – where 50 percent of all U.S.-sold Hyundais will be built by the end of 2006 – the new Santa Fe has projections for 90,000 sales in its first year. Forty percent of them, Kravcik said, will be all-wheel drive, with the other 60 percent front-wheel drive.
Driving hard in the front-wheel-drive Limited model, my co-driver and I agreed that the Santa Fe looked good, and felt pretty good, but we didnÂ’t think the handling was as precise and refined as we had anticipated. Later we drove an all-wheel-drive version and thought it was better, but felt tail-heavy, almost as if the same vehicle suddenly was given a heftier rear axle with more weight but no alteration. Another tandem of journalists gushed praise about the handling to Hyundai officials during a lunch stop conversation, and I countered by saying we found the opposite to be true.
However, on the return trip, in a different Limited with front-wheel drive, we both thought the handling was much more crisp, much more precise, and more impressive. Later, I found the lunch-table associate and he said they drove back in the Santa Fe we had driven up, and he agreed the handling was not as precise. So we determined that it might be something as simple as less air pressure in the front tires, or a lack of consistency in different production vehicles at the introduction.
Regardless, step back and look at the new Santa Fe, and you can appreciate the giant step forward it represents for Hyundai. If all thatÂ’s lacking now is a tiny, final tweak of refinement, the new Santa Fe is a lot closer to bargain perfection than most of its competitors.
Compass provides Jeep with new direction in SUVs
PORTLAND, ORE. — When it comes to a single name to get out of the wilderness, the first name that springs to is “Jeep.†Right now, when $3 gasoline prices underscore a trend toward less-expensive commuter vehicles, small-family haulers, or active-lifestyle fun SUVs, Jeep has the answer: the 2007 Compass.
What could be a more appropriate name than Compass to lead buyers who are lost in the auto-buying wilderness?
At the media introduction of the Jeep Compass, it seems some other automotive journalists muttered that the Compass is too cute to be taken seriously as a Jeep. Hmmm…have we reached the level of sophistication that we don’t want out vehicle to look good? I’m not a subscriber to that theory. I think that if the Compass happens to offer a fresh look that attracts more young, active singles or just-married types, or – careful now – female buyers, that’s not a problem; it’s an asset.
If guys find the attractive looks and smooth lines beneath their macho standards, then that’s a guy problem. More self-assured guys will appreciate getting nearly 30 miles per gallon, having their four-wheel drive come from a front-wheel-drive platform, and being “forced†to spend about half – under $20,000 for most models – for a Compass that is comfortable and enjoyable to drive on the road.
The problem is that the Jeep name is one of the most recognizable in the world, and it has stood for rugged, uncompromising off-road vehicles since Willys-Overland first made the “Quad†vehicle for the U.S. military in 1941 – 65 years ago. Those vehicles became known as Jeeps after 368,000 of them were used during World War II.
The company, now owned by DaimlerChrysler, continues to make the Wrangler, which is the traditional successor to the first Jeeps. A larger and more civilized vehicle called the Cherokee and now the Grand Cherokee was joined by the Lilberty to give Jeep three nameplates in recent years. But by the time the 2007 rollout is complete, Jeep will be up to seven vehicles. The new and larger Commander, introduced this year, and a redesigned Wrangler, are joined by a Wrangler Unlimited – lengthened and with four doors — now being joined by the Compass. A new Patriot will be coming by the end of the year to make it seven.
In reality, the Patriot may be the more rugged version of the Compass, because Jeep is aiming at two different brackets – traditional and modern. The Patriot will go for the traditional Jeep buyer, and the Compass is aimed at people who may have never considered a Jeep before, but will find it meets their demands for size, style, price, fuel-efficiency, and capability.
While fitting in well in performance and capability with any compact SUV, the Compass also seriously undercuts almost all of them in price. The base two-wheel-drive model starts at $15,995. The base 4×4 model starts at $17,585. Moving up to the fancier models, with an impressive list of features and options, the Compass Limited starts at $20,140, and the Compass Limited 4×4 starts at $21,740.
The Compass starts out on the same platform, and with the same drivetrains, as the new Dodge Caliber, which has been wildly successful since its introduction. But the Compass has an entirely different look, and different intentions. From our preliminary introductory drive, the Compass can easily handle the casual, or active-lifestyle off-roading challenges that most people this side of serious rock-crawlers will find satisfying.
We drove off from downtown Portland westward to the Pacific Ocean. We got to the town of Tilamook, and had lunch in nearby Pacific City. Halibut fish and chips could be enjoyed at a neat restaurant called the Pelican Pub at Cape Kiwanda while looking out at an awesome off-shore rock formation. Haystack Rock is taller than SeattleÂ’s Space Needle, and is actually a mile offshore, even though it appears to be about 100 yards out.
After that, we headed north, entering a carefully protected sand-dune area, where we joined a flock of off-road buggies to challenge some major ridges and hills and terrain that amounts to mountains of soft, sinkable sand. It was there that I became very impressed with the Compass’s CVT – continuously variable transmission.
The Compass uses the new, Michigan-built, corporate 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine, originally designed in a joint venture with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. Hyundai engineers came up with the most efficient original design adopted as meeting world-class standards for technology and power – 172 horsepower and 165 foot-pounds of torque. A transverse mount allows a shorter hood length and efficiently mounts on a transaxle to make it Jeep’s first front-wheel-drive vehicle.
{IMG2}
The engine, with dual overhead camshafts and variable valve timing, adapts well to Freedom Drive I, a new 4×4 system that transmits power back to the rear axle, as conditions demand. It also runs through a continuously variable transmission. This CVT is ingeniously designed to allow hand-shifting the AutoStick, which actually squeezes the continuously shifting belt to put you in a different gear ratio.
That worked well on the highway, where I wanted to pass a slower vehicle. Knowing a CVT might be tardy in building up extra torque, I manually downshifted two gears and our Compass sprinted away on its assigned task. But in those sand dunes, it really came through.
Driving with a specialized instructor in the passenger seat, we easily climbed some normal sized dunes. Then he asked me to try to conquer one that he had never even tried. I put to use all my best driver-learning techniques of scaling the icy slopes of Duluth, and used the same instincts. When you get some momentum, you keep it. At one point, the Compass wheels were churning and throwing sand, and I honestly thought we would go no higher. But I stayed on the power, and sawed the steering wheel back and forth, and, sure enough, the CVT stayed with its self-adjusting power range, and we made it to the top.
We not only got a breathtaking look at the Pacific from there, but my instructor was impressed, and I kept thinking how much fun it will be to try scaling those January hillside avenues in Duluth.
The Compass interior is contemporary and ergonomically efficient. You sit higher than the Caliber, which is less-designed for any off-roading. The Compass roof is 2 inches higher, and you actually sit 4 inches higher than the seat point in the Caliber. The Compass also has 8.4 inches of ground clearance, a 20.6-degree approach angle, 32-degree departure angle, and 21-degree breakover angle – all better than the Caliber. There is a switch to lock the four-wheel-drive in place for serious off-roaders, and traction and stability controls all contribute to the Compass’s directional balance and control.
From an appearance standpoint, the Compass has a little reverse pillar at the rear that adds flair, and bulging rear wheelwells add a serious look, but up front, the “cuteness†also has the traditional Jeep grilled and forward look, with a clamshell hood opening. Standard 17-inch wheels are standard, with 18-inchers on the Limited upgrade models. A fold-down rear seat that also is recline-able, and spacious footwells, with a sizeable cargo area in the rear, provides a roomy interior. You can add things like a nine-speaker Boston Acoustics audio upgrade, with large speakers in the rear doors, and 6×9 inch speakers up front. Leather seating comes standard on the Limited.
Jeep is marketing the Compass at younger buyers, maybe single, and both male and female. The primary aim is active-lifestyle types, but on a starting income. Average household income of $60,000, and age targets of 25-35, quite likely buying their first new vehicle, all fit into the demographics. Of course, those targets mean nothing if you happen to be old, experienced, wealthy, or not wealthy, but you simply like what it will do for a bargain price.
If you wanted the top of the line Compass, loaded with every option possible, you could probably get it up to $23,000. But a budget-minded shopper could get a well-appointed 4×4 version for under $20,000.
For that, you get technology, good power, good mileage, electronic roll mitigation, antilock brakes, and off-road capabilities that seem surprising because of how impressive the Compass is on the road and for normal creature-features. If the Compass also happens to look good, compared to some of the more rugged-faced Jeeps, well, thatÂ’s just something buyers will have to put up with.
Lucerne restores Buick’s large, bargain-luxury image
A friend of mine from the European ancestral melting pot called the Iron Range in Northern Minnesota identified himself simply as “a Bohunk.†Years ago, when I was test-driving a Buick, he said “We call Buicks Bohunk Cadillacs.†The hard-working iron miners couldn’t afford Cadillacs back in the 1960s, so Buicks became the luxury pinnacle of their car-buying aspirations. The new Buick Lucerne may rekindle that feeling.
I’ve never called anyone a Bohunk, but I guess someone who identifies himself as one can be excused for defining the reason Buicks have always been so popular among the working class. After some tough times, the Buick heritage has changed to include several SUVs, and only two cars – the year-old LaCrosse and the new for 2006 Lucerne.
We might never figure out why established names such as Regal, Century, LeSabre, Park Avenue and Roadmaster have been replaced by the monickers for a small town in Wisconsin and a big city in Switzerland, but the two cars definitely should restore BuickÂ’s health in the value/luxury segment.
The Lucerne is big. Very long, with an enormous rear seat and trunk. As a 6-foot tall driver, I can put the seat back to where IÂ’m comfortable, then find I can sit in the rear seat and have a full 6 inches of space from my knees to the front-bucket backrest.
In replacing half of a five-car fleet, the Lucerne is the luxury liner of the new Buick fleet, and it does the job admirably. It is slightly shorter than the full-boat Park Avenue Ultra that previously headed the Buick line, but it has a longer wheelbase, and modern designers were able to parlay that into an increase of interior room.
Similarly, the trunk is enormous. It is a definite contender for any family that needs to haul five occupants regularly, with luggage as well.
The stylish exterior has a definite Buick look to the grille, which is flanked by glassed-over headlights, and the side shows very wide rear doors, and a nice slope to the roof at the rear, with a rear-end design that is contemporary and looks good.
Inside, the front bucket seats are wide and roomy, and I think the instrument panel looks good by being simple and easy to read, with the usual controls on a restyled center stack. For its size, and for what it replaces, the Lucerne is a bargain. My test car went from a base price of $28,265 to an as-tested price of $31,430.
There are, however, a couple of curiousities with the Lucerne, and its sibling relationship with its smaller and less-expensive LaCrosse.
Go back a few years, and Cadillac led the way in modernizing the whole crop of GM engines, with the Northstar V8, and the so-called high-feature V6. The 4.6-liter Northstar V8 and the 3.6-liter V6 both are treated to dual overhead-camshafts, four valves per cylinder, variable valve timing, and assorted other features that set high-tech engines apart from more-primitive engines. It takes money to build such engines, obviously.
For over four decades, GM also has made a 3.8-liter V6, called the 3800 for its displacement cubic-centimeters. It was a good engine when it first came out, built by Buick, and it has gotten better as the prime workhorse V6 fitted into nearly every GM sedan this side of Cadillac. It has been renovated over the years, and weÂ’re now up to a Stage III version of it. However, it is showing its age, and still has pushrods operating the valves. GM considers it a good value because its performance is adequate and the cost to build it long since amortized.
Meanwhile, when Bob Lutz came to GM as vice president, he insisted that Buick designers had to throw away their attempts at making all five car models look the same and design something new. To help the brand along, he pried both the 4.6 Northstar and the 3.6 V6 away from CadillacÂ’s self-contained world, to be used by Buick.
Both cars come standard with the 3800, which is now called the 3.8 again.
In the LaCrosse, the 3.8 has 200 horsepower, while the upgrade optional 3.6 offers 240 horsepower, despite having smaller displacement. The 3.6 makes the LaCrosse a very impressive car, indeed.
{IMG2}
In the Lucerne, the 3.8 has only195 horsepower, and can be upgraded to the 275-horsepower 4.6 Northstar V8 – the first V8 offered in a Buick since the old Roadmaster days.
The new Lucerne CXL test car I tested came with the 3.8 V6, with a four-speed automatic, and it seemedÂ…adequate. In the current highly-competitive entry-luxury level, adequate might not do the job against so much high-tech. My curiosity is that if the smaller-displacement 3.6 has enough added punch to be the optional upgrade over the 3.8 in the LaCrosse, why wouldnÂ’t Buick offer the better and more potent 3.6 as the base engine in the larger Lucerne?
A much stiffer platform and new suspension make the Lucerne handle very well, and it engulfs occupants with a silence that is Lexus-like. I am assuming the car would have better-than-adequate performance with the V8, although the base pushrod V6 might be good enough for the more traditional Buick buyers.
Standard features include four-wheel disc brakes with antilock, side airbag curtains, OnStar, remote keyless entry, rain-sensing wipers, particulate air filters on the climate control, AM/FM/CD/MP3 audio, leather seat appointments, and power locks and windows. ItÂ’s a lot of car for under $30,000, although installing the V8 would boost the price.
The test car had several option packages to add eight-way power and heated seats for both front buckets, power lumbar support, chrome-plated wheels, remote starting, rear parking assist, and an audio upgrade.
At $31,430, thatÂ’s still a good deal. But IÂ’d like to know what the sticker would say if the 3.6 V6 were available. Whatever the difference, I would consider it a bargain, but thatÂ’s because I like the 3.6 V6 so much. It also means that a discerning shopper will look all through the Buick dealership before buying, because if the LaCrosse is big enough, it also offers a lot for an even bigger bargain. IÂ’ll have to check and see which model is selling better on the Iron Range.
Sky reaches styling pinnacle and hides a few clouds
When it comes to creating a new two-seat roadster, the sky is the limit. The Saturn “Sky†reaches the top echelon of eye-stopping beauty in its stylish design, even if, overall, it falls a couple notches short of the limit.
The Sky is SaturnÂ’s 2007 version of the recently introduced 2006 Pontiac Solstice. Its bodywork and styling is remarkably different, and itÂ’s a few inches longer, but the two cars share the same kappa platform and 2.4-liter Ecotec four-cylinder engine.
As two-seat, open-air roadsters go, the market is pretty wide open. In the $40,000 realm, there are the BMW Z4, Mercedes SLK, Porsche Boxster, Audi TT, and the rarefied Lotus Elise, but closer to $30,000, the Honda S2000 is pretty much the only choice. In order to keep the price down to a reasonable $20,000-$25,000 bracket, there also has only been one choice – the Mazda Miata.
So it was a worthy move by General Motors to make the Solstice, aimed at the MiataÂ’s sports-roadster-on-a-budget market segment. For 2006, the Solstice came out directly opposite a new third-generation Miata. There is no doubt that the newer, more feature-filled and stronger Miata is a gem, a much tighter and quicker and more sophisticated car than the first-off Solstice.
But I had to give a Car of the Year nod to the Solstice for one big reason: The Miata was a substantial improvement over an already excellent vehicle, while the Solstice was a breakthrough vehicle as the first GM product in decades that was fun to drive for reasons other than enormous engine displacement.
The SolsticeÂ’s shortcomings are the lack of anything resembling trunk space, a top that is as busy to put up and down as the MiataÂ’s is simple, a five-speed stick where the Miata offers a six-speed, and a 2.4 engine that is a little unsophisticated and canÂ’t beat the highly sophisticated 2.0 in the less-expensive Miata, and an overall feeling of looseness compared to the extremely tight Miata.
Still, the Solstice design is stunning, from every angle, and it wins big points for appearance. GM officials said a six-speed isnÂ’t offered in order to keep costs down, so unfortunately a concession was granted to the Miata right out of the box.
Now along comes the Sky, and it purposely has been made a little bigger, a little heavier, more stylish, and presenting an entirely different appearance. It is perhaps even more stunning to look at, with a frontal appearance that is more like a combination of the new Corvette and the newest Camaro concept car shown off at this yearÂ’s auto shows. The rear also has a very attractive and more geometric shape than the Solstice.
The Sky is intended to carry the heavy load of altering SaturnÂ’s entire persona for the coming generation. While Saturn has entrenched itself from all of its first-generation vehicles and outstanding dealership conduct, the plan for the future, as GM confronts major financial problems, is to taper SaturnÂ’s independence and make it something of a U.S. outlet for shared vehicles with GMÂ’s German Opel operation. With that in mind, the Sky is very similar to the new Opel GT.
The Sky will start at a base price of just over $23,000, which is about $3,000 more than either a basic Solstice or a basic Miata. After loading on a few options, the Miata and Solstice might rise to $25,000, while the Sky might get to $27,000. The test Sky I drove stickered at $25,130.
In styling, on a 10-1 scale, I would give the Miata an 8.0 – because it is not much of a variation from the previous model – and the Solstice a 10.0; but with the Sky now on the horizon, I might give the Sky a 10.0 and drop the Solstice to 9.7.
While I wasnÂ’t invited to the Sky introduction, I did get a gleaming silver Sky for a weekÂ’s test drive shortly thereafter. When the press-fleet car showed up, it dazzled the whole neighborhood. On my first walk-around, I had to admit it was eye-catching from every angle, although the neat little chromed vents on the hood are phony, and my theory is that if itÂ’s not functional, why bother? When I looked inside, I saw the high-gloss black — “piano black†they call it – panel on the top of the center dashboard, and the shiny silver panel surrounding the floor shift lever. But the shift lever – it was an automatic.
Now, automatics may rule the industry, but in a sports roadster it almost seemed sacrilegious to put an automatic. Still, the Miata can be obtained with an automatic, and it has neat little paddle-shift manual overrides on the steering wheel. But thereÂ’s no such feature on the Sky.
The automatic is a five-speed, an $850 option, and fifth helps with a lower-rev cruising gear on the freeways. In “D,†however, stepping on the gas at takeoff produces a fairly loud roar that doesnÂ’t seem to be matched by the enthusiasm of the carÂ’s launch. My wife, Joan, went off for her first drive in the car and called me on her cell phone. “This car groans,†she said. “When you step on it, it groans!Ââ€
I suggested putting the shifter in “4,†which holds the transmission in the first four gears and gives the car a much better attitude, as well as ratio, for city and residential driving. With 177 horsepower, I’m sure the stick version would run as well as the stick Solstice, and closer to the quicker Miata. The automatic Sky definitely can’t keep up to that group.
Anyway, driving the Sky is pretty impressive. It steers well around corners and holds the road quite well, thanks to its wide and low stance, and top-shelf Bilstein shock absorbers. Its 3,200-pound weight leaves the Sky’s autocross quotient a bit short of the lighter and quicker-responding Miata.
As for shortcomings, I found a few. I was unable to put the top down for the first couple of days, because of the kind of drizzly rain that open-air sports stadium proponents seem to have forgotten about. But I was heading from Minneapolis to Duluth for the weekend, and returning in time for a senior menÂ’s baseball practice.
To get into the trunk, hit a switch in the cockpit or on the key fob and the little fabric-top points that meet back on the neatly styled buttresses behind the two seats snap to attention, straight up, and the clamshell-opening lid unlatches. Then you get out, flip it up, and see a massive carpeted thing over the fuel tank, and precious little room around it on both sides, and at the rear. I had to do some equipment compromising, and put carefully placed my computer bag, my baseball glove and spikes, a ball bag, one batting helmet, and two selected bats. ThatÂ’s all that would fit. Snap the top back down, and walk around the car to button down the two fabric top points, and weÂ’re off.
In the North Shore sunlight, it was time to shoot some photos. I drove up on Skyline Drive, and flipped the rear lid up, unlatched the top, and folded it carefully back and into the receptacle, above the gear I had stowed. But the lid wouldnÂ’t close. After several careful attempts, I realized I had to move the helmet, the glove, the spikes and the ball bag into the passenger seat, and only then was there room to put the folded top down deep enough so that the lid closed securely.
The fact sheet says luggage space is 5.4 cubic feet with the top up, and 2.0 with it down. Those figures might work, as long as none of the items youÂ’re stowing are larger in diameter than a folded-up newspaper.
The different interior kept supplying issues that I also found less than ergonomically sound. The instrument panel has only speedometer, tachometer and fuel gauge, and while they are all located well, they are housed in bright silver bezels, and the fuel gauge is down a tube. In different light conditions, I found glare from the bright silver surrounds made it difficult to see the fuel gauge at all.
{IMG2}
Sitting in the cockpit, the diagonal door grip is comfortable to grab, but because of its location, the switches for the power windows as mounted rearward from that grip, on the armrest. But when IÂ’d slide my arm back to operate the switches, my elbow hit the end of the armrest detent before my fingers could reach the switches. Without the skill to operate the switches with my elbow, I had to put my elbow up at ear-height and reach straight down, as if I was trying to put myself into a hammerlock, to open or close the windows.
If my arm was too long to work the window switches, they were too short to reach either the storage box located on the back wall between the two bucket seats, or the dual cupholders that popped out directly under that cubicle. A single cupholder will pop out of the center console on the passenger side.
When a new model has these kinds of shortcomings, you wonder if any full-size human ever sat in one to see if all was well, and if so, whether such an evaluator might need to be institutionalized for sadistic tendencies.
My other ergonomic question was so bizarre that I am declaring it a remarkable coincidence of anti-ergonomics.
Driving along with the top up, on a fairly bright day, when the sun poked through I found myself repeatedly glancing up at the rear-view mirror, each time realizing there was not some vehicle that had suddenly materialized behind me, but instead was merely a reflection in the rear-view mirror that was bright enough to catch my peripheral vision.
Finally I decided to trace it, because the reflection was that of the shiny silver gearshift lever surround – which is located directly down from, and perpendicular to, the rear-view mirror. So how did the reflection get there? It’s easier to understand if you’re into billiards, because this required a four-cushion bank shot. First, the glints of sunlight or even normal brightness, coming down through the windshield hits the silvery surround, and reflects almost straight up, where it hits the windshield, and reflects straight back. With the top down, it would continue on into infinity, or Infiniti, if one were driving behind you. But with the top up, the reflected glare ricochets off the almost-vertical rear window, bouncing almost straight back forward – into the rear-view mirror, from where it flashes directly into the driver’s eyes.
Remarkable. Even a Ford insurrectionist who infiltrated GMÂ’s design studio couldnÂ’t have been clever enough to create this scenario with such fiendish precision.
Despite those complaints and criticisms – call them nitpicks – I liked the Sky overall. I’m sure I’ll like it a lot better with the five-speed manual. I personally prefer little engines that overachieve, and when the sticker price rises to near $30,000, the Honda S2000 enters the picture, with a four-cylinder that stirs up 240 horsepower and performs at another level. I’ll have to check out the Sky again with a stick, and still again when the car gets a Red Line upgrade this fall, with a turbocharged 260 horsepower version of the basic Ecotec, firmer suspension, and a limited-slip differential. That will be impressive, but it also will further underscore performance and handling shortcomings of the normal Sky.
We’ll have to wait and see about the window switches. And you may still have to decide whether to take your wife or a couple of small duffel bags, because you can’t fit both. That remains the nagging memory of the Sky. It’s extra frustrating when a car that is a perfect “10†in styling and appearance has such nagging shortcomings. I thought we got well beyond the style-over-substance plateau a couple of decades ago.
About the Author
John Gilbert is a lifetime Minnesotan and career journalist, specializing in cars and sports during and since spending 30 years at the Minneapolis Tribune, now the Star Tribune. More recently, he has continued translating the high-tech world of autos and sharing his passionate insights as a freelance writer/photographer/broadcaster. A member of the prestigious North American Car and Truck of the Year jury since 1993. John can be heard Monday-Friday from 9-11am on 610 KDAL(www.kdal610.com) on the "John Gilbert Show," and writes a column in the Duluth Reader.
For those who want to keep up with John Gilbert's view of sports, mainly hockey with a Minnesota slant, click on the following:
Click here for sports