Red-hot Firebird unruly on icy-cold roads
One of the odd characteristics of learning how to drive on the hills of Duluth, and driving over 100 cars every year is that I truly enjoy driving in all kinds of weather.
Light, dark, rain, snow, sleet, slush, and on prairies, mountains, even off-road — in the right vehicle, and on purpose, of course — all offer an opportunity to learn something and to absorb new adventure.
The same holds true for cars. Given a choice, it makes the most sense to drive sports cars — especially convertibles or roadsters — in the summertime, or at least spring or fall, and 4-wheel-drive beasts are interesting any time of year, but most enjoyable in winter.
So when word came that a factory 1999 Pontiac Trans-Am Firebird was coming last week, I questioned the timing. It was the Ram-Air, 325-horsepower, Corvette-engined version, with the 6-speed manual shifter. Awesome car, I suggested, but why now, with the risk of winter? Why not sometime after May, when we can be assured, well, reasonably assured, that we won’t get another icy blast?
Word was, this car had the latest form of traction-control, and while it has the big 5.7-liter engine up front and the drive wheels at the back, it would be worth experimenting to see how the traction-control worked, if there was a little snow.
OK. I’m game.
The pictures look good, but this is not a normal test report of the Firebird. We’ll do that in a future column. This one is just about traction-control.
There had been a bit of a snowstorm the day before the car met me in the Twin Cities. No problem. I was off for Hibbing, for the Section 7AA high school hockey tournament final. The Firebird leaped to its assigned task, whisking me up I35 to Moose Lake, then northward on a twistier 2-lane, directly to Hibbing. Never spun a wheel, but then there was no ice buildup, no snow, and we sailed along, the extremely firm suspension only jolting a bit, but an easy tradeout for the precise control it delivered.
Heckuva game, three overtimes. Elk River beat Hibbing 2-1. Although they’re open until midnight, Sammy’s Pizza in Hibbing wouldn’t sell us any pizzas because it was 11:40 p.m. Still, across the street, the pewter-grey Firebird looked inviting and menacing at the same time, like something from the future, even while parked.
Zipping back to Duluth, the Trans-Am proved to be flawless in its precision as a road car, and the cruise down Hwy. 53 was completely uneventful. No spinning, nothing treacherous, and I almost regretted the fact that the pavement was so clear of snow or ice that I couldn’t yet check out this fancy traction-control stuff.
Traction-control used to be pretty simple, and it has advanced to the point of being amazingly high-tech, with the computerized systems reacting so swiftly to the tendency to lose traction that it almost seems to anticipate a spinnable situation and adjust to shift the power to the other side, which has more traction.
I have driven some front-wheel-drive vehicles with tremendously enhanced traction from such systems, most memorably a Mitsubishi Diamante that I drove from the Twin Cities to Duluth and back, and then to St. Cloud and back, during a 24-hour period of the infamous Halloween blizzard a few years back, when folks were advised to stay home and the state even took the plows off the freeways to let the storm run its course. A passenger on our trip would have questioned whether it was even slippery, and wondered why all those other cars were off the road.
I also experienced a rear-drive version of traction-control on one of the old, former Mercury Cougars, and it was equally astounding when I took it out on a frozen and abandoned parking lot and tried to spin it out. I could do it if I cranked the steering wheel full and hammered the brakes, but not if I stayed on the power. In fact, turning the wheel lock to lock and staying on the gas caused the car merely to slow down and chatter a little, but never to threaten to spin out of control.
One other most memorable occasions came when I drove an all-wheel-drive Mitsubishi 3000GT across Wisconsin to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula right after a heavy snowfall. (Is there any other time on the Upper Peninsula?) This was interesting because the low, sleek 3000GT is an all-out performance sports car with traction control as well as all-wheel drive, and also with big, wide, sporty tires for exceptional dry-weather or wet-weather traction. But no good on snow and ice.
At one four-way stop near the Wisconsin-Michigan border, I approached as an oncoming car and one from my left were sitting at a four-way stop-sign intersection. They waited, almost as if they knew. I hit the brakes, and, despite the chattering of the antilock system, there was no chance I was going to stop. I could only slew through the stop sign.
At the last instant, when my semi-out-of-control attitude was inevitable, an instinctive action based on that memory of the Cougar-in-the-parking-lot caused me to let off the brakes and step lightly on the gas, while turning right. Incredibly, the traction-control bit better than the antilock brakes, which I attribute to the nearly race-slick tires, and while I did run the stop sign, I made an almost stylish right turn, then immediately turned left into a convenience store lot, continued on out the other entrance, and went on northward on my journey. Far as I know, those other two drivers might still be sitting at that intersection, hooting with laughter or in wide-eyed disbelief.
Such experiences have allowed me to develop a motto: Any and all traction-control systems work best if there is at least some traction.
I pulled into Duluth well after midnight, and made my way to my countrified place, which has a fairly long driveway, with a small but quite-abrupt hill at the roadside edge, the product of a road renovation years ago that built up the road a couple of feet and turned the once-level driveway into a challenge.
“Hmmmm,” I hmmmed. About 4 inches of new snow covered the driveway, so it could be tough getting out of there. But, at last, it’s the perfect chance to try this latest traction-control system. I could picture it churning and chattering as it clawed its way out in the morning. Just to be safe, however, I figured I’d back in, so that I’d have the benefit of added weight transfer to the rear drive-wheels when I exited going forward.
Next morning, I climbed in, fired up the big V8 and admired its throaty roar. Great sound, 325 horses makes. With the 6-speed manual shifter, first gear is drag-race worthy, but pretty hot for winter, so I made sure everything was in order, and figured I’d start in second, to be able to creep forward and get a bit of momentum up before that little rise, 100 yards away.
Surprise! The slightest touch of the throttle and the most delicate easing out of the heavy clutch produced two significant actions: 1. The instrument panel flashed a phrase “Low traction,” and 2. The Firebird’s formidible rear end, with those massive P275/40ZR 17-inch race-ready tires, wanted to move only to the left. Straight left. No forward motion whatsoever.
I pulled all my tricks, and finally got it sort of zig-zagging ahead maybe 10 feet, after about 30 thrusts. Each time I backed up to try to establish some sort of lanes for those humungous tires. But there was no chance. And when it finally went sideways far enough that I had to push snow with the car door in order to step out into a 2-foot drift, I had to throw up the white flag.
I realized immediately that this particular Firebird did not have traction-control, either futuristic or primitive. In my experience, the cars with traction-control usually flash an instrument panel note to show the traction-control is engaged, which is helpful to remind you that you may want to be more cautious because of conditions. They do not tell you that there’s “low traction” because the traction-control is supposed to enhance that very problem.
And besides, noting there was low traction, while 325 horsepower surged sideways at the least hint of ice and/or snow, seemed to qualify as an amazing grasp of the obvious.
Fortunately, a friend who has a 4-wheel-drive Toyota 4-Runner agreed to come out, and bring another guy along. Finding a spot to connect a tow-hook onto the underside of the extremely low-slung Firebird was one final challenge, but that 4-Runner was impressive at how it simply walked us both on out of that driveway, up the rise and all. It did, however, help that the extra man on the scene walked along by the left rear flank of the Firebird, pushing hard to prevent the rear end from continuing to seek sliding that way with every touch of the throttle.
Once on the road, everything was fine. And on down the highway, and the freeway, where, of course, there was no ice or snow.
Another motto: If you can pay $30,000 for a Trans-Am Firebird, there are a lot of spine-tingling reasons to justify it, but most of them involve stepping on the gas, or hurling it into a curve, all on dry pavement; make sure it has traction-control, and maybe even then park it in November and leave it until April. Or else buy some skinny little winter tires and throw a couple of hundred-pound sacks of sand in the little cubicle under the rear hatch.
There are situations so foul that front-wheel-drive cars can get stuck, and extreme circumstances where even all-wheel drive might struggle or falter. But in every case, even with front-engine, rear-drive, the biggest controllable item is tires. The wider the tires, the better the handling on racy corners or dry pavement; the narrower the tires, the easier for them to dig in snow and spit out whatever they pick up.
Beyond that, of course, is tread compounds. Softer compounds are better in the cold, but tend to wear out faster. Harder compounds are better for long wear and dry-weather performance, but spin and slip much easier in cold and snow.
All that is another column for another day, just as the Trans-Am Firebird is. Another one is coming in a short while, with an automatic transmission and guaranteed to have traction-control.
If you believe in Murphy’s Law — and who doesn’t, this close to St. Patrick’s Day? — it will probably show up a few days after the last trace of snow or ice disappears Up North.
Revised Windstar hits mark from all sides
1999 FORD WINDSTAR SEL
Likes: New design, dual-power sliding doors, reverse-sensor warning.
Dislikes: Hefty feel, hefty price tag.
Bottom line: Base price (SEL model) $30,415; as tested $31,395 or $32,495.
Having previously driven the new Ford Windstar minivan in normal city/highway usage, I was more impressed when I got the opportunity last week to put another Windstar through some amazing paces in the Rocky Mountains.
It passed through passes, it handled the abrupt rises in altitude, it negotiated some extremely twisty, winding switchback gravel roads, and it did it all without a whimper. We went places only pickup trucks and sports-utility vehicles should go, and we did it with ease. Furthermore, we could have done it with seven aboard.
Minivans command less favor than sports-utility vehicles these days, but look around and you’ll realize the minivan market segment is not only alive and well, but offers new and elaborate ways to move families efficiently. While SUVs make sense for families that go crashing through little-used roads Up North, or frequently tow trailers, or pull neighbors out of snowbanks, most SUVs have been gobbled up by consumers who are seeking alternatives to the trendiness of minivans.
The result is a whole bunch of people following the trend toward SUVs, in order to avoid the trend of minivans. That’s OK, too, except that minivans are far more efficient and useful in hauling families and the kids’ sports teams around economically.
The originator of the niche was Chrysler, with their Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager. They weren’t the first minivans in the world, but they were the ones that turned the marketplace upside down, and caused all other manufacturers to scurry around trying to compete. The SUV niche now numbers over 40 vehicles of different varieties, while the number of minivans has remained somewhat stable — Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen, and more recently Honda. While being fewer in number, the builders have been able to narrow their focus and make their vehicles better.
Ford’s Windstar is an example. At first Ford tried to challenge the Chrysler minivans with the Aerostar, a big, heavy, bulky vehicle that really was just a shortened version of its big van. While working on the Windstar, Ford contracted with Nissan, which builds a find minivan called the Quest, and jointly built a version of the Quest for Mercury, called the Villager. Many consumers might think the Mercury Villager is merely a twin of the Windstar, but they are completely different vehicles, and both are new for 1999.
The first Windstar was good, and this one is very good.
Both ’99 test vehicles were a glowing, emerald green metallic color — fitting for the weekend before St. Patrick’s Day. Both were the top-of-the-line SEL models, which meant they had so many creature comforts that it’s difficult to note them all.
They also wore price tags that indicate how far minivans have come, at over $30,000.
SPECIAL FEATURES
The new Windstar may not have the most sophisticated engine, but Ford has tweaked its optional 3.8-liter V6 to achieve now only low-emission status, but it produces 65 percent less hydrocarbons than average for its class, which allows it to meet ultra-low-emission status in California. And it still utters 200 horsepower and 240 foot-pounds of torque, to handle enormous amounts of cargo, plus a 3,500-pound tow-ability. A four-speed automatic is standard.
The ’99 Winstar is first to have head and chest side-impact airbags, mounted in the bolsters of the front seats. The Windstar got the best crash-test figures of any minivan when it was tested.
Interestingly, Ford folks tell me that the Windstar sales were improving in the late days of the previous Windstar, and the new one, with an all new exterior and interior, should make those figures jump more. The key, these days, is to have some features the competition lacks, and the Windstar covers all the bases pretty well.
The newest thing in minivans is to have big, sliding doors on both sides, instead of just on the passenger side. The Windstar has ’em, and it offers the neat touch of having both of them power-operated, either on the ceiling console or by key-fob remote.
Hit the button, and the door on whichever side you choose whirs and opens, quite quickly. (But if you stop quickly and hit the button without putting the van in “P” for park, it won’t function.) Hit the same button again, and the door closes, clicking tightly into its final place.
I found the system worked very well for loading adults easily into the rear bucket seats, but occasionally the remote buttons were a bit balky. When you’d hit the button repeatedly, it would generally work, although a couple times I’d hit it four quick times, and on the second time it started to close, only to stop and start to reopen on the third click. Some patience is required, obviously.
Another major feature is the reverse sensing system, which Ford spells with capital RSS. This is a device I first found on the high-end BMW sedans, and involved tiny little sonar sensors in the rear bumper, no bigger than a button. When you back up, and start to get close to something — anything — you hear a little “beep” and if you get closer, you get “beep-beep-beep” at closer intervals until, when you get to within 10 inches of an object, the beeping turns to a steady “beeeeeeep.”
This device was a touch of class on the BMW sedans, and it is the same on the Windstar, except that it is probably more useful on the van with its big, square back, limiting rearward view. It works great for parallel parking, and for parking lots when you pull out and wonder how far back you can go to clear the row behind you.
The cartoonish thoughts of the future can’t help but occur, with such sensors on all sides, warning the more buffoonish among drivers that they should change vectors to avoid accidents. But at the rear, on the Windstar, it is a wonderful and unique touch.
Ford clearly loses the cupholder battle. Which means it wins. You can get up to eight cupholders, max, in a Windstar, while some others have gone crazy, offering up to 17 cupholders as you fold down various seats. That means if you fold down all the seats, to get the maximum 17, you could only have two occupants, and thus need far fewer. Eight is enough, as they say, in a vehicle with seven seats.
One more neat and exclusive feature is on the roof console. Along with the normal sunglass case, garage-door opener holder, there is a little convex, fold-down mirror that comes down from the console, and allows the driver to instantly have a clue about all five occupants in the middle buckets and rear bench seats. That is nice for cruising along and having conversation when there are adults back there, and it is fantastic for those with a lot of kids in the family or for hauling the first unit of the Peewee hockey team to the game — just to make sure they stay seated, or go to neutral corners. It could be worth the price of the sticker on a long vacation drive.
DRIVEABILITY/LIVEABILITY
Minivan buyers want the ability to haul the whole family/team, but they also want to be able to cruise along smoothly and with car-like ease. In fact, that is one of the major assets over SUVs that minivans enjoy, and with all of them having front-wheel-drive these days, and a couple with all-wheel-drive options, they can conquer the worst roadways in foul weather.
The Windstar I drove around Minnesota was nearly identical to the one I had in Colorado Springs, with both of them being “Woodland Green Clearcoat Metallic” in color. The Minnesota test vehicle had medium graphite leather interior, and the one in the Rockies had medium parchment leather. The only differences were that the Minnesota car had the side airbag option, the family security antitheft option and the trailer-towing package; the Colorado vehicle had a high-altitude package. Both had power driver seats and the reverse-sensors. That meant the Colorado van was $31,395 to the other van’s $32,495.
In driving, both were smooth and responsive. Both handled as well as most full-size sedans.
That was particularly proven in Colorado, where we drove west, past Pike’s Peak, then veered off onto some uncharted side roads, where we climbed higher and higher on single-lane switchbacks, pulling off far to the side to let the occasional oncoming pickup or SUV pass. They were pretty grungy and wore their dust and dings with pride; we were in a glistening green luxury van, with trick alloy wheels and shiny chrome accents. But we coexisted.
We also had living-room-style comfort in those leather captain’s chairs, exceptional visibility in all directions, including from inside-out through the heavily-tinted privacy glass on the rear three quarters, and we had the nice touch of tunes through the dash-mounted CD player. We had the Saw Doctors on, a spirited Irish group (remember, the weekend before St. Patrick’s Day) that I first heard on KUMD-FM, and that seemed perfect while whisking through the huge pines and rugged rock formations up there near the sky.
If the rear-seat occupants had wanted to, they could have tuned in a different station and listened on headsets with their own audio controls, which is another fantasyland option that would be much appreciated on a long trip with kids of all ages.
The second and third row of seats are interchangeable, incidentally, which also is a nice feature for different situations, including trips where you’d prefer luggage space instead of one of the seat rows.
The EPA estimates for the Windstar with the 3.8 at 17 city and 23 highway. We got 16.5 miles per gallon combined in Colorado, but the combination was a little bit on city streets and freeways, and a lot up in the mountains. I would guess a big SUV in the same circumstances would have gotten 10 mpg, and I would estimate that in more-mundane, real-world driving, the Windstar could hit that 23 figure.
In the mountains, I frequently shifted down to third for climbing, and second for descending, so as not to be on the brakes constantly. You can use the brakes up in a hurry in mountain driving. The Windstar feels hefty, which is something Ford seems to prefer, but its agility, handling and suspension were never in question.
Ford had to rally to build the two-sliding-door Windstar. It got beat by Chrysler to that aspect, and a year ago it made an attempt to offset it by offering an extra-long driver’s door, for easier entry to the rear. It wasn’t, although it was easier to bang cars next to you in parking lots. That attempt missed the mark, but if you can afford the stiff price tag, the 1999 Windstar hits all the marks, including a few the others miss.
AUTO SHOW
Auto shows at the level of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Auto Show don’t have the same magnitude as those in Detroit, Chicago, New York or Los Angeles, which means the show, which concludes this weekend at the Minneapolis Convention Center, doesn’t have as many concept cars or new production vehicles. That may make it far less of an attraction for casual car-folks, but it also makes it better for the serious car-buying show-goer. Fewer distractions.
At the Twin Cities show, for example, the Dodge Power Wagon and Chrysler Chronos concept cars are on stage, and so is the Plymouth Pronto Cruizer. That is the original concept car, though, and not the prototype PT Cruiser, which changes spelling in real-world form as was shown in Detroit. There also was a new Ford Ranger concept pickup, and the new Dodge Quad Cab Durango, the new Chevy Impala, and a neat Mercury concept car, called (My) Mercury.
Other, larger shows, however, prevented the new Explorer Sportrac, Lincoln Navigator/pickup prototype, or Thunderbird from showing up. Nor were there any of the numerous one-off GM concept vehicles. I was surprised there wasn’t even a Honda S2000 sports car, which is soon to hit the streets.
Toyota has a sign in its display boasting of the new IS sporty sedan, but there was no IS at the display. “I can show you a picture,” one salesman said.
It made me glad I was able to get to, and get photos from, the Detroit auto show, and it might be a hint to automakers to make enough new products to go around, rather than tease us and set us up for disappointment back in our homestate.
V6 with 5-speed transforms 626 to family hot rod
1999 MAZDA 626 LX
Likes: The new look is smooth and stylish, and the spaciousness is amazing, but the V6 performance is most noteworthy, especially with the 5-speed.
Dislikes: With all that room, the power seat and sunroof may make it tough to find the optimum seating angle.
Bottom line: Base price $17,665; as tested $22,310.
There are those of us who buy sports cars, and those of us who buy family sedans, and it seems more and more unlikely that those twains shall ever meet. Although we’re talking cars here, not twains.
The fact that most sedans built to carry out mundane, everyday family tasks are often boring, doesn’t mean that those of us who must buy them are free of desiring more exotic, more exciting, more enjoyable vehicles.
Thankfully, Mazda has addressed those suppressed desires with a version of the 626 sedan that not only is an over-achiever when it comes to family hauling, but is ‘way off the scale when it comes to fun-to-drive attributes.
The test-car I recently got was properly attired in a sort of champagne/beige/sand/whatever color, which was classy in a subdued sort of a way. Showed off the neat flow of lines of the newest 626 without being blatant about it.
It was an LX model, which used to be the middle-of-the-road version, more filled with creature-comforts than the DX, and not as loaded as the ES. For this year, Mazda has dropped the bottom-line DX, so the only models are the LX and ES, with each of them having two versions, depending on whether it has the 4-cylinder or V6.
The test car was armed with the 2.5-liter V6 engine, which is a high-revving, dual-overhead-camshaft, 24-valve gem to begin with. And even though it’s small in displacement, it’s potent when you stand on the gas and let those revs wail.
However, with all engines in general, and with smaller engines more dramatically, filtering the power through an automatic transmission takes the performance edge off a car, and while it adds to the convenience of the coffee-and-cell-phone era of drivers, it also takes away from the driving control and enjoyment of driving.
So I was excited to see that the test 626 also came equipped with the basic 5-speed manual transmission. Mazda folks have told me that they have had a surprising number of sales of stick-shift 626es, both with the very good dual-overhead-cam 2.0-liter 4-cylinder and the V6.
Still, I was not prepared for the sport-car-like takeoff. Put it in first, let out the clutch, and zap! You’ve gone 100 yards. Swiftly. A whole bunch of sedans with Ford and GM names, and with larger engines but without 5-speed availability, would be seriously surprised at the comparison.
The shifter works smoothly, and the performance was very strong in every gear. Since many other medium to full size sedans come with V6 engines that are over 3.5 liters, the test car was ample evidence of my previous findings that the right engine, in the right car, with the right transmission can be much more satisfying and enjoyable.
MORE FOR THE MONEY
The LX model starts at $19,065, which is not inexpensive, until you consider what comes on the car. The test car had traction control, ABS, 15-inch alloy wheels, a sunroof, power driver seat and an upgraded Bose stereo system with a CD player, and that full complement of options pushed it to $22,310.
That also may be approaching ES territory. But the base LX with the 4-cylinder starts at a mere $17,665. When loaded with the V6 and all, that still was a lot of car for the money, because standard equipment includes 4-wheel disc brakes, independent suspension, keyless entry, power windows, power locks, and a good stereo system.
I have always liked the 626 as an understated mid-size sedan that has been an over-achiever for years. Built now in Flat Rock, Mich., exclusively designed for the U.S. market by a Mazda company that now has shared ownership with Ford Motor Company, the latest 626 is the best of the batch, in my opinion.
In Mazda’s scheme, the top of the line used to be a large flagship called the 929. Those were simpler days, when Mazda had a big 929, a medium 626 and a small 323. The 323 begat the Protege, which is among the best of all subcompact cars. And the 929 went away, to be replaced by a high-tech, luxurious but still sporty Millenia.
The most recent style change of the 626 came a year ago, and transformed a solid and well-built, but very understated sedan into a slightly larger but definitely more stylish car.
In fact, with its front end more sculptured, and a curvy uplift to the rear, the new 626 looks a lot more like the Millenia than it does the previous 626, which was aerodynamically smooth, but without the little grooves and curves that add personality.
Over the years, Mazda has suffered a bit, unfairly, against the excellent top models of the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. The 626 is strong, durable, well-built and easily capable of being a 10-year car for its owners, with excellent fuel efficiency as well. Its sales have not challenged the top duo Accord/Camry, but its performance has. And its history goes back to 1979, when it was a rear-drive coupe and sedan tht was named Motor Trend’s import car of the year in that first year — 20 years ago.
Throughout its history, Mazda seems to have discovered a method of building more room into its vehicles than should reasonably be anticipated. This is the fifth generation 626, and for a mid-size car, its trunk is spacious, the front seat head and legroom is large, and the rear seat room is enormous. Even with the front buckets moved quite far to the rear, there is more than enough room for adults in the back seat.
Dual depowered airbags are standard, and one of the most impressive features of the 626 is that it is built strong but light, rather than merely loading weight on in the name of safety. Structural rigidity and tight-building concepts can accomplish major safety characteristics without weight, if done well. And this one is.
DRIVING THE BEAST
I don’t mean to imply that you have to be a race driver to enjoy the 626 with the V6 and 5-speed. You can manage it very nicely without ever revving it to the ample 7,000 RPM redline. It’s just pleasant to have all of those 170 horses available at the tap of a toe. The horsepower peaks at 6,000 revs, with the 163 foot-pounds of torque peaking at 5,000. Those are high figures, but the engine revs so willingly, that there is never a feeling of strain.
I got 25 miles per gallon, running the revs up. EPA estimates are 21 city, 27 highway.
Handling around corners kept up with the power. The car has stabilizer bars both front and rear, and rack-and-pinion steering that has a power boost that fluctuates based on engine revs, because you need a lot of boost when you’re going slowly enough to park, and you need almost no boost when the engine revs are as high as they’d be at cruising speed.
The traction-control system can be switched off, but it does a good job in foul-weather driving on the front-wheel-drive sedan. It is the same system perfected on the more costly Millenia, and it gauges wheel-speed to detect when one wheel seems to have the urge to spin faster than its partner, and in such cases it reduces engine power by limiting fuel and ignition firing.
With the optional alloy wheels, the handling was fine in normal usage. I had one trip on the freeway with gusty, 40-mile-per-hour crosswinds, and you had to keep pointing the car in the right direction. That may have been a function of the tires, or the car’s lightness. It wasn’t a bother, just more noticeable than I anticipated.
The cruise control switches are accessible with your thumbs, without taking your hands off the steering wheel. And the headlights were very good, with a sharp cutoff.
I did have a couple of nuisance things I didn’t like about the 626. One was the cloth seats. They were comfortable and supportive, but Mazda is proud of adding a control that raises and lowers the seat. That’s a big feature, one that Volkswagen buyers have enjoyed in Jettas and Passats in recent years. But on the 626, I found that it just wanted to raise or lower the rear part of the bottom cushion. So when you raised it, it changed the angle of the cushion, and when you lowered it, the front part was more firmly up under your knees.
I also like a lot of headroom, as much as I like outward visibility, but when I raised the seat cushion just a bit for optimum visibility I found my head was brushing against the ceiling. Now, that is because the sunroof causes the ceiling to be at least an inch lower. I could easily tilt the backrest back a bit, but I like to sit with my backrest pretty near vertical. All that means I might try buying the car without the power seat, which also takes up a bit of the vertical room between the floor and the roof.
If I were to buy an LX this loaded, I’d have to compare the already-loaded ES model for driving position.
Overall, in the midst of the most hotly competitive market segment, the 626 LX seems to be placed well, starting with the 4-cylinder/5-speed for those looking for all-out economy and some fun; the 4-cylinder/automatic for those not looking for higher performance; the V6/automatic for those who want higher performance but are beyond having the urge of shifting for themselves; and the V6/5-speed for those aforementioned types — drivers who must fill all the requirements of a responsible family sedan, but also want an answer to the Walter Mitty urges for high performance.
Mercedes hits luxury pinnacle with new S-Class
You’ve seen the television ad campaign, one of the more clever for automobiles, where various shots show such items as Ernest Hemingway, with the underline “a writer,” then a Greek or Roman ruins with the words “a building,” an astronaut planting the U.S. flag on the moon with the words “a visit,” a video of Jackie Robinson swinging the bat with the caption “a ballplayer,” and finally a view of the new Mercedes S-500 sedan, with the caption “a car.” After all that, a graphic says: “Sometimes words can be hopelessly inadequate.”
Great ad. Impressive car. Mercedes is aiming the new S-500 at being the definitive luxury automobile, and it’s true — even a few thousand words might struggle to adequately describe it.
The recent merger between Mercedes Benz and Chrysler appears to a lot of car folks to be more of an acquisition, and it will be intriguing to observe the new Daimler-Chrysler corporation unravel its mysteries over the next few years. However, there is no mystery that the Mercedes S-Class stands out, above and beyond the call of normal automobiles. Or even normal luxury automobiles.
The 2000 model year is designated as the latest of six incarnations for the Mercedes S-Class luxury sedans, but the first models are headed for the nation’s showrooms even now. The first few hundred S-Class vehicles reached San Francisco’s preparation base a few weeks ago, so Mercedes summoned four waves of automotive journalists to meet up with about 15 of the cars in Arizona last week to get the first actual test-drives of off-the-line production vehicles.
An all-too-brief test drive in a pair of new model S’s gave graphic indication that Mercedes has combined off-the-scale luxury, convenience, technology, comfort, safety and — surprisingly, perhaps — sportiness, into one all-out vehicle.
The S500 is clearly for the discriminating buyer who demands, and can afford, the ultimate sedan in one package. And the S430 isn’t far behind, as an alternative costing $8,000 less. Now, an $8,000 saving is significant, but before you reach for your checkbook let’s get one thing straight: The S430 costs $69,700, and the S500 costs $77,850. Not counting $595 for destination delivery.
So we’re talking fantasyland here for the basic, average car-buyer, or even the high-rolling car-buyer. But there are folks out there looking for the ultimate ride. Mercedes sales were up 39 percent in 1998, with 17,000 of them being S-Class flagships. It is aiming 25,000 of its new-year production of 75,000 S-Class sedans at the United States, which last year became the largest market in the world for Mercedes cars. It used to be the largest outside of Germany, where most taxicabs are Mercedes diesels, where the durability for 200,000 miles far outweighs the initial expense.
But let’s do a fast once-over on the new S-Class:
APPEARANCE
Mercedes has gotten pretty daring in recent years, renovating its base C-Class sedans and its midrange E-Class, then coming out with its stubby SLK sports car, a beautifully flowing CLK sports coupe, and its hot-selling M-Class sports-utility vehicle, which is made exclusively in the U.S. By comparison, the larger S-Class still looked impressive, but it was beginning to look more like a tugboat than a flagship next to its sleeker, high-tech siblings.
The new S-Class takes care of that. Both models are smoother, less-blunt, with a steeply tapered front end widening gracefully to the passenger compartment, and then on down to the rear, which is stylish on its own. The sloped frontal area and overall design gives the S-Class a wind-cheating 0.27 coefficient of drag, which is the best of any production sedan in the world. Lower is better, aerodynamically, and a lot of very sleek sports cars and coupes rank from 0.32 to 0.28.
The all-new frame and body have used aluminum, thinner gauge but stronger low-alloy steel, and even magnesium for some engine components. The result is that the new S-Class is 550 pounds lighter than its predecessor, yet stronger, tighter and safer. It also is over 2 inches shorter in both wheelbase and overall length, an inch narrower and a couple of inches lower, but it has more headroom and legroom both front and rear.
The seats are sumptuously covered with leather, and you can get different types of leather depending on option choices. You look at a gently styled dashboard, with wood paneling. The S500 gets Napa leather and burled walnut, while the S430 gets “plain” leather with eucalyptus wood. The power switch allows you to move the driver’s seat 14 different ways.
Among the more impressive features is a cruise control that is radar-controlled, so it not only maintains your speed, but it adjusts to maintain the interval between you and the car ahead.
An option package gets you special ventilated seats, in which 10 tiny electric fans, six in the cushion and four in the backrest, draw air from under the seats and distributes it through the ventilation holes in the seat leather, cooling the seat so thoroughly that it can dry out a heavily perspiring occupant. In the winter, it works in concert with electric heating elements to warm the seat more quickly.
Yet another astounding feature is the active lumbar orthopedic touch, where seven different air chambers in the seat, lower back, shoulder and side bolsters can be adjusted for support, but also can be activated automatically to inflate and deflate slowly and completely about twice a minute in modulating fashion. The motion is imperceptible to the occupant, but it is designed to effectively relax the spine and back muscles without approaching the dulling massage-therapy type of relaxing.
The rear seat also is heated and adjustable to 10 percent for the seatback.
PERFORMANCE
Big, hefty luxury cars usually need enormous engines to function with appropriate power. The new S-Class uses a pair of all-new engines that represent a breakthrough in modular engine design for Mercedes. A couple of years ago, Mercedes brought out its new CLK coupe and installed a new V6 engine. After years of battling BMW for supremacy of inline 6-cylinder designs and performance, Mercedes switched over to the V6. It had three valves per cylinder and a single overhead camshaft, in a technical field where four-valve heads and dual overhead cams predominate.
But Mercedes used exhaust flow and varying intake runners and alterable camshaft timing to satisfy itself that the design would work, with two intake and one large exhaust valve on each cylinder, which also has two sparkplugs for thorough, timed firing. The original design was of 2.8 liters displacement, and a 3.2-liter version, with a longer stroke, came next. That was used in the M-Class SUV and the E-Class sedans.
Now Mercedes has expanded the V6 block to a V8, which measures 4.3 liters, and is the engine in the S-430, with 275 horsepower and 295 foot-pounds of peak torque, and at the same time offers a larger bore 5.0-liter V8 for the S-500, which produces 302 horsepower and a staggering 339 foot-pounds of torque.
With that, the recently introduced 5-speed automatic transmission is installed, with improved driver-adapted tendencies based on computer imput of how you drive. That is standard on both the 430 and 500, as is a TouchShift feature that is similar to the Porsche/Audi Tiptronic, or the newest shifter from BMW, and, quite by coincidence, operates almost identically to the AutoStick offered by Chrysler — Mercedes’ new partner. It allows the driver to shift manually without a clutch, if he or she chooses. You put the floor shift lever in “D” for drive and let it shift, or you nudge the spring-loaded lever right to upshift or left to downshift.
That is particularly handy for coming off a freeway, where you want to downshift from D to, say, third, or where you want to accelerate hard enough to hold a gear and let the revs rise further into the power band. Besides, it’s fun, and it gives the sporty flair to the S-Class that Mercedes is demanding.
Complementing all that power distribution is a new suspension, with four-link front and five-like patented rear, and AIRmatic hermetically-sealed air springs that replace the usual steel coils with pneumatic struts controlled by an electric high-pressure air compressor.
The whole suspension package does several tricks besides allowing you to zap around tight corners with precision. For example, the air suspension lowers the car over a half-inch at any speed above 68 miles per hour to reduce air drag and fuel economy, returning to normal height when speed drops to 40. It also can be raised .8 inches manually whenyou’re on a rough road, and it retuns automatically if speed gets to 75, or is sustained at 50 for over five minutes.
Special valves on the adjustable shocks also stiffen or soften according to imput from various sensors that measure longitudinal and transverse movement and determines which of four settings is appropriate.
How does it all work? StarWars-sounding or not, the whole package is fantastic. Two of us alternated driving two difference cars, with a Mercedes guy in the back seat. Driving along one newly paved but deserted straight stretch, I gently but smoothly accelerated, which led to an interesting exchange.
“Oh, this car has a rev-limiter, doesn’t it?”
“Yes, but how do you know?”
“I just discovered it.”
“How fast?”
“A hundred and thirty.”
It was stunning, and it was only for a short blip, and it was not the sort of thing that would be recommended or promoted outside of a controlled test circumstance, but the car was smooth, precise and completely stable at 130, which will be fine on the autobahns of Germany, and indicated what kind of technical underpinnings are in the car.
My codriver overdid things a bit on the twisty mountain roads, driving unfamiliar curves far too fast and in a race-car manner that a 4,133-pound sedan would never and should never be forced to challenge. But it was stable and smooth at such excesses, where I protested that such driving manners were great for testing the traction-control devices, but put far too much responsibility on the tires.
At that, the oversized disc brakes and suspension collaborated to haul the beast down from any speed.
SAFETY
Mercedes always has been at the forefront of vehicle safety and the crushable front and rear energy-absorbing technology. The new S-Class sedans have dual-stage front airbags tht instantly deploy moderatel for a mild crash and totally for a harsher impact. It also has sensors in the seats to determine whether someone is sitting there, and won’t deploy the costly airbags if not needed.
The car also has four door-mounted side airbags and two side curtain airbags that run the total to eight. The curtain side airbags drop down all along the sides that are 6.5 feet long and 14 inches in width and two inches thick. They have proven to reduce side impact head injuries by 90 percent.
Mercedes always has run its cars through more severe crash tests than the U.S. government tests. So the new S-Class sedans meet frontal offset crashes of 40 mph instead of 35 or 30, and side impact tests at 38 mph instead of the U.S. test’s 34.
In addition, little things like locating the fuel tank ahead of the rear axle to be protected from the “deformation” area in a crash, and placing the spare tire against the rear subframe to increase the structural rigidity, are also well devised.
There is more, much more, such as a standard navigation system that can be used with or without coordination with a hands-free onboard telephone. It has a global positioning system that can help you plot trips and track your location, and also connects with a Protection One service for instantaneous help in the event of a crash. If a collision deploys an airbag, the system immediately contacts Protection One, which immediately calls the car’s cell phone. If there’s no answer, it relays all pertinent information about precise location to the closest police and emergency vehicle services. It can be activated even quicker by an onboard button.
The audio system, air-filtration device and winter-driving traction control also deserve explanation, but, as the ad indicates, words — and space — have their limits.
The only drawback is an Up North driving preference for front-wheel drive, or all-wheel drive. Mercedes remains steadfast about front-engine/rear-drive, and has gone all-out in its traction-control technology. But Mercedes does offer one E-Class model with all-wheel drive. So we — at least those of us who might afford one of these babies — can hope the all-wheel-drive feature gets added to the S-Class.
Ranger, Mazda B-4000 are same compact pickup
The Ford Ranger is the nation’s largest selling small pickup truck, and has been for a dozen years in a row.
Mazda pickups have always been tough little competitors that created a smaller but very enthusiastic following of those who admired the easy-to-use B4000.
In past years, if you liked the Ranger, you might not like the Mazda, and vice versa. But for 1999, if you drive both the Ranger and the Mazda B4000, you’ll note some similarities.
For example, both the Ranger and the Mazda B4000 come with optional extended cabs, and they are the only two compact pickups that offer reverse-opening door access to the rear jump seats on both the driver and passenger sides. Interestingly, both offer great access to that tiny little area that isn’t quite big enough to have a regular seat, but it does allow fold-down, side-facing jump seats.
Both the Ford Ranger and Mazda B4000 come with small 4-cylinder engines, of 2.5 liters, and both have optional 3.0-liter V6 engines, plus top-of-the-line 4.0-liter V6 engines available.
Another quite remarkable feature of both vehicles is that they have exactly the same length (201.7 inches), width (70.3), height (67.5) and wheelbase (125.9), if you measure just the extended-cab versions of the two.
The Ford Ranger first came out as a 1983 model, and its manufacturing is done at the St. Paul assembly plant, as well as in Louisville, and in Edison, N.J. It has always been rugged enough for farm or ranch work, carrying loads through fields or woods, while having enough comfort to be used on streets as well. But ruggedness has been a major feature of Rangers.
Mazda pickups also have been known for ruggedness since they started being sold in the U.S. in 1971, but its reputation was more of on-road durability, with overhead cam engines that would easily last 150,000-200,000 miles. In recent years, however, when switching to the 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 configurations, Mazda has lost the overhead-camshafts and uses more conventional pushrod-style engines. Those newer Mazda B4000s are made, incidentally, in Edison, N.J.
Hmmmmmm. Has anyone yet made the connection?
Sure enough, Ford bought deeper into Mazda, and ever since 1993 Ford has manufactured both the Ranger and the Mazda pickups in the Edison plant. What they do is build the Ranger, then put a Mazda badge on some of them, to be sold as Mazda B-Series trucks.
By doing so, Ford shares the all-new vehicle it had redesigned just one year earlier, and the whole thing seems pretty efficient.
The Ford publicity book for 1999 says that the SuperCab was added to the Ranger midway through the 1998 model year, which means “Ranger is one of only twocompact pickups to offer a four-door model — Mazda’s B-Series is the other.”
And with good reason.
Ford redesigned the popular Ranger for the 1998 model year, with new front end styling and a new interior, plus improved performance and a new front suspension. While a 5-speed manual is standard, you can get a 4-speed automatic, or Ford’s new 5-speed automatic, which, it says here, is “shared by the Mazda B4000.”
We’re not surprised.
The diehard buyers of Mazda pickups of a decade ago might be surprised to find a lot of features they had never seen on previous Mazdas, but they would look strikingly familiar if they had hitched a ride or two in any Rangers of recent vintage.
I had a chance to test both vehicles a while ago, and it was interesting that one followed the other within a couple of weeks. Both were equipped with the 4.0 V6, and both had extended cabs.
The power was good in all citified applications. The Ranger pulled smoothly and quickly enough, and seemed a worthy worker if you had to haul moderate to heavy loads. The Mazda B4000 was equally as impressive.
While seating position and cushion comfort were good in both vehicles, and the visibility from the driver’s seat was equally good as well, I remain puzzled by one identical feature.
While the 4.0-liter V6 is a strong engine, especially at lower RPMs, it is made in Ford’s Koln, Germany, plant, strong and durable but without overhead camshafts. Two years ago, Ford engineers beefed up the 4.0 and reinforced it, then ran it through a makeover that mounted overhead cams on it. It was built for Ford’s Explorer SUVs, and magically, the freer-spinning overhead-cam 4.0 produced nearly as much power as the 5.0-liter V8, and also got as good fuel economy on the smaller, less-powerful V6 engines.
Perhaps Ford is having trouble keeping up with production of the 4.0-V6, because that engine still is being sold only as optional on Explorer models, while the Ranger pickup — which could use the extra punch — doesn’t even get the full-powered overhead-cam version of the V6.
The result is that both the Ranger and the Mazda B-4000 run well up to 70 on the freeway, but if you happen to be cruising along, on the steering-wheel-operated cruise control, and you have a situation where you might want to swing out and pass, you might be surprised to find that you already are on the floor with the gas pedal and the vehicles balk at the idea of going over 75. Pushrods, in this case, are a very effective method of speed control.
The pushrod 4.0-liter V6 in the Ranger (and the Mazda B-4000) delivers 160 horsepower. With the overhead-cam version in the Explorer, that same engine delivers over 200 horsepower. For two years, I’ve assumed it was just a matter of time until the overhead-cam V6 showed up in the Ranger, but it’s an assumption I’m figuring is out of the question.
Dodge has moved its Dakota up to what it is calling “mid-size” — between the compact size of the Ranger and the full-size pickups — and it is offering a full crew cab with four full-sized doors in the new model, and the available power of a big V8. Also, Toyota’s strong and smooth compact pickups are being complemented by a bigger Toyota pickup, and both have strong, overhead-cam engines.
Ford has a good, durable truck in the Ranger, and the new one with its longer wheelbase and styling upgrades, could increase its market share. But it also is going to have Mazda right alongside as a twin, and the question is, will they be ahead or behind those new and impressive challengers for market segment?
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