New Intrigue gets new, state-of-the-art V6
1999 OLDMOBILE INTRIGUE GL (3.5)
Likes: Smooth, high-revving and high-tech dual-overhead-cam V6; the look and feel and most of the features make it a bargain alternative to the Aurora.
Dislikes: Take the daytime running lights — please! At 3,434 pounds, it could be a little lighter, which would make it even quicker and more agile.
Bottom line: Base price $22,575; as tested $25, 885.
For much of the past decade, rumors have been flying that General Motors would, as part of cost-cutting procedures, close down its Oldsmobile branch. A test-drive in the new Olds Intrigue GL, with the new 3.5-liter V6, would indicate that rumors of Olds’ demise have been greatly exaggerated.
For even longer than that, I have been criticizing General Motors for failing to keep up with the latest technology, choosing to continually upgrade and tweak outdated engines so they can keep getting around the laws and add to corporate profitability by failing to spend research and development money.
But the new 1999 Intrigue means I’m going to have to find something new to criticize.
For 40 years, GM has built a 5.7-liter V8 that has powered the Corvette, plus virtually every big corporation sedans and pickup trucks and SUVs.
The 3.8-liter V6 is nearly as old, and GM engineers have done a remarkable of rebuilding and renovating that motor, into incarnations as the 3800 and the 3800 Stage II. Those engines are as highly developed as conventional pushrod engines can be. They are quite powerful, and quite durable, and could be found in mid to large sedans, including the Buick Park Avenue and Pontiac Bonneville as well as the Olds products.
The problem was, competitors all had gone into the future, building overhead-camshaft engines that more efficiently operate the valves than conventional engines, which have the camshaft in the block, operating the valves by a more complex and less efficient system of pushrods.
Cadillac came up with a futuristic dual-overhead-cam V8 for its Seville, and to help buoy Oldsmobile, a version of that V8 — diminished from 4.6 to 4.0 liters — was given to Olds when it introduced the Aurora. It is that 4.0 engine that is the basis for the Olds Indy Racing League engine that powers virtually all the cars.
Meanwhile, corporate headquarters is well on its way to burgeoning Oldsmobile’s status. The Achieva is gone, replaced by the Alero. And the Cutlass is gone, replaced in 1998 by the Intrique.
At its introduction, the Intrigue was an impressive piece. Sleek and aerodynamic, it has pleasing, flowing lines with a low grille and a properly aerodynamic tip on the trunk. The new Pontiac Grand Prix, and the Buick Century and LeSabre also have been redone.
Trouble was, all of them came out a year ago with the tried and true — or is it old and dated? — 3800 V6. Nothing wrong with that engine, but it was like everything else in the car was brand new and ultramodern, but the engine was 30-something years old.
This is the computer age, when computer buyers want the latest thing, and won’t even settle for one-year outdated sale stuff in order to hold out for the futuristic stuff. Why should they be willing to settle for aging motors in their cars?
Finally, after several years of development, GM was ready to introduce an all-new V6, a 3.5-liter derivative of the 4.0 DOHC V6. It was almost as though they lopped off the end two pistons from the V8 to get the new V6.
I have waited patiently for a chance to test that engine, and it has been over a year. It turns out that GM has decided that Oldsmobile will be the only division in GM that will be able to utilize the slick, new 3.5-liter V6.
The first Intrigue I test drove had the 3800, then I got an assortment of Olds, Pontiac and Chevy products, but no new 3.5 in sight. Finally, I got my hands on a glistening black Intrigue GL with the new engine. It more than lived up to its billing, providing swift, high-revving flexibility with very good power.
ENGINE TRICKS
Since the valves are on top of each cylinder, pumping them open and shut by the most efficient possible method allows higher RPMs and therefore more power to be extracted. The crankshaft spins in the bottom of the block, with the pistons connected to lobes on the crank. By positioning the camshafts above the valves, then spinning the cams by a belt, they have more direct action on the valves and can make them open and shut much more rapidly and efficiently.
That’s why racing engines have overhead cams, to develop optimum power from a given engine size.
When Olds engineers were forced to downsize the 4.6 Northstar V8 to 4.0 for the Aurora, they learned a lot of tricks that they applied to the new 3.5 — which used to go by the nickname “Shortstar.”
First, the block is made of aluminum, in two pieces, allowing it to be lighter and stronger than cast iron, with the two-piece construction stronger still. Cylinder heads also are cast aluminum. Accessories are direct mounted, instead of stuck on, here and there, with various belt drives necessary to operate them. Instead of single overhead camshafts on each bank of pistons, the Intrigue 3.5 engine has dual cams, one for intake and one for exhaust, on each bank. And instead of running the cams via a belt from the crankshaft, this engine uses a chain to run the cams, eliminating the concern of belt wear and breakage.
The engine control module combines a new, upgraded 4-speed automatic front-wheel-drive transaxle, with over 70 percent of its components beefed up for quieter, stronger performance and more precise shiftpoints.
All in all, this new 3.5-liter V6 develops 215 horsepower at 5,600 RPMs, and 230 foot-pounds of torque at 4,400 RPMs. Now, 3.5 liters is comparatively large in a midsize class where most V6 engines range from 2.5-3.2 liters, but if you’re going to be bigger, you’d best have more power. And the 3.5 delivers, with surging acceleration and sustained, smooth power up through the shiftpoints to as fast as you want to go. Some critics have said it doesn’t seem any quicker than the old 3800, but the advanced technology and smaller size make the 3.5 a prize.
I got 24.7 miles per gallon, although the EPA estimates show 19 city and 27 highway. My driving was mostly highway, but then I confess to running the revs up, just because it felt so good and sounded even better.
CREATURE FEATURES
The Intrigue GL features include good seats, a nice-feeling, thicker steering wheel wrapped in leather, independent suspension with stabilizer bars front and rear, upgraded along with what is called “Autobahn package” tires and brakes. Four-wheel disc brakes with antilock, power door locks, a theft-deterrent system, 16-inch wheels, 6-way power seats, dual-zone air conditioning with rear ducts for air and heat, cruise control, power windows and power outdoor locks. Foglights, power fuel door and trunk releases and a split folding rear seat is standard, too.
A base price of $22,575. That isn’t all that cheap, but the option bin prices are truly bargains.
You could live without leather seats, at $995, but they are nice. A Bose AM-FM-cassette-and-single-CD dash unit, with eight speakers and a rear shelf amplifier, is worth $500, and a 12-disc, trunk-mounted CD changer is another $460. Not outrageous, if you take your tunes seriously. Full-function traction control is $145, and an air-filtration system is a mere $25.
The best bargain of all, however, is the 3.5-liter twin cam engine, at $395. That runs the sticker to $25,885.
It is interesting that, as good as the 3800 Stage II V6 is, you have to pay a premium for a smaller 3.5 engine, but it’s a small price to pay for the costlier technical advancements.
Besides, if you’re paying over $20,000 for a state-of-the-art car — which the Intrigue certainly is — then you’ve got to be eager to fit it with a state-of-the-art engine.
There are some nits we could pick. The high-speed, H-rated tires were more aimed at performance than snow and ice traction, and they tended to spin in those conditions before biting. They were very good in dry and wet situations, but Up North here, we get more than merely wet and dry.
And I don’t care what anybody says, I absolutely despise “daytime running lights.” These things come on, at only slightly less than full-power, every time you start your car. In theory, it’s a safety measure, because it makes you more visible to oncoming traffic. In fact, however, I find my own routine upset by these nuisances.
For example, I get in a car and start the engine, then I put on the shoulder harness, then I turn on the headlights. Maybe that’s a subconscious way to give the engine a moment to warm up, and maybe it’s a precaution against turning on accessories before starting the car in cold weather. Whatever, it’s just the way I do it.
But with daytime running lights (DRL) already on, I tend to not turn on the headlights. You can see just fine with the DRL glow, so your mind tells you there’s no need to turn on lights that are already on. One problem: When you don’t turn on headlights, you don’t get taillights with the daytime running lights — a genuine danger, at night, and especially in foul weather.
One other thing. Sometimes you might leave the family inside shopping, and you come out to listen to the end of the hockey game, or some KUMD music, so of course you start the car so as not to run down the battery. Do that, and the daytime running lights come on, and car after car stops, assming you’re about to pull out of the parking place. You know, sometimes it’s just peaceful and nice to sit there with your lights off. And with DRL, you can’t.
Those are small things, but needless nuisances nonetheless, on a car that is otherwise a strong alternative to some of the best domestic cars, such as the Intrepid or Concorde, and to many of the imports, such as Camry, Accord, Galant or 626.
Ford, GMC wage 4-door pickup battle in BIG way
In the beginning, there were cars, and then there were pickup trucks, vans, minivans, larger pickup trucks, and smaller pickup trucks. It used to be you owned a car, and you bought a truck because you needed it for work. Or else, you wanted a car, but you bought a pickup because you could get it for half the price of a car.
Trucks, trucks, trucks — they’ve taken over the automotive market segment with baffling pervasiveness. Everybody heard that the top-selling vehicle in the U.S. was a Ford pickup, and second-leading was a Chevrolet pickup. But that’s because all models of pickups were lumped together in those numbers, while the number of car variations continued to expand. But, last year, for the first time, total trucks outsold total cars in the U.S.
Where will it end?
I think we’ve just about found it.
I got a chance to test-drive a whole group of different pickup trucks recently, and most recently I got a chance to drive a couple of monsters. One was a Ford F250, with the crew cab and a huge, 6.8-liter V10 V8 engine. The other was a GMC Sierra 2500, also with what we shall call a crew cab, powered by a large, 7.4-liter V8. Both of these beasts carry stickers of over $30,000.
These are the middleweights, on a pickup scale that goes from compact to midsize to full size half-tons, then to oversized 3/4-ton. The only things bigger are specific dump trucks or semi tractors.
These two are the 3/4-ton babies, and they are both more than full-size. In fact, they are definitely bigger than the extended-cab versions, because they’ve got two full-size rows of seats, with four full-size doors.
In the pickup truck business, the progression has been curious, but odd. First there were 2-doors, then Ford and GM raced each other to see which could be first out with a third door, opening backwards, in the manner that used to be called “suicide” doors, because they opened into the face of oncoming traffic. Both Ford and GM insisted they were smart by putting the third door on the driver’s side of the compact pickups, and on the passenger side of the full-size trucks. Reasoning was that smaller truck drivers would use that extended-cab space for storing stuff, and would prefer to open it from the driver’s side, while the bigger rear of an extended-cab full-size pickup would be more likely used for passengers, so let ’em get in curbside.
Dodge, caught without a third door, did what was exceedingly logical the next year, and put those little suicide doors on BOTH sides. Ford scrambled to come up with the equalizer a year ago, but GM has seemed unaware of all that, and is still stuck with a third-door only, and on the passenger side. You don’t realize what a nuisance that is until you’ve enjoyed the luxury of two full doors and two suicide doors, then go back to find you have to circle a Chevy or GMC to access that rear section.
Anyhow, while all that door-adding was going on, it occured to me that going to four doors on pickups. Sure enough, as was exposed at the Detroit auto show, the next trend in the ever-proliferating (and extremely profitable) truck battle is to come up with hybrid vehicles — either Sports Utility Vehicles with the third seat chopped off and replaced by a small pickup box, or a pickup truck with a full rear seat.
But before those hybrids can hit the market, Ford and GM dusted off the little-used heavyweight worker-bees — the old crew-hauling trucks, which, for decades, have had full double-cabs, with real-world room in the back, and full-size, normal-opening doors for easy access. They were primarily used for hauling work crews out to the jobs, which caused them to be named, cleverly, “crew cabs.”
That concept is what I recently drove, and by coincidence, I got one from both Ford and GMC.
Both of these are huge, with the Ford being the bigger of the two. Both of them are right at home hauling or towing enormous amounts of weighty objects. And both of them are attractive enough and so filled with creature comforts that you could take the boss and his wife out to a formal dinner and let them sit in the back of your truck. OK, not way in the back, but the back seat.
FORD F250
This big truck is called SuperDuty by Ford, and it comes equipped to do super duty. First off, the F250 fairly towers over the large F150, and I recall driving up to a stoplight and thinking how small that Ranger next to me was compared to the F250. Then I realized that the other truck wasn’t the compact Ranger, but a full-sized F150. The V10 engine also is huge, not only with 10 cylinders, but they measure 6.8 liters, or 412 cubic inches.
The engine is a single-overhead-camshaft device, part of Ford’s modular family of high-tech engines. It cranks out 275 horsepower and 410 foot-pounds of torque, which is clearly enough to tow your house around the block.
This beast weighs 6,300 pounds, and yet it looks reasonable in size because of its flowing lines. The Ford is tall, over 80 inches tall. What that means is, you walk up to it, open the door, and find that you have a long way togo and an agility drill ahead of you in order to enter. Thankfully, there is a running board, so you can get a foothold on your way to the summit, and, despite the thin air up there, you can vault into the seat.
It looks huge, but not as huge as it really is, because it is so long, with that long cab, and its full-size interior, that has all the room of the first two rows of a large SUV, such as the Navigator. It’s sort of like looking at Mount McKinley; alone, it seems enormous, but seen in the concept of an entire mountain range, it looks just a little big.
The base price of the F250 is $28,330, but when you add the light prairie tan leather interior, the 6.8-liter engine, the electronically controlled automatic 4-speed, and all the goodies, such as alloy wheels and a special 4.30 towing ratio that gives you an 8,800-pound haul rating, and 10,000-pound towing limit, the price climbs to $34,490.
It is a handsome pickup, with the new-look aerodynamics allowing the driver to have good visibility, and the seats are comfortable. The turning radius is enormous, however, so don’t even think about any u-turns on a normal street. You also want to consider long and hard before you drive past any gas stations, because pushing all that weight around takes power, and leaves you with down around 12-14 miles per gallon.
You’d have to have a working-class need for a vehicle like this, or you haul a heavyweight trailer more than just a few times a year. For example, if you had a small house trailer, this would be the rig to haul it, because you could stash the whole family in the seats-for-5.
GMC SIERRA 2500
The Sierra is identical to the new Chevrolet Silverado, except for the look from the front, where the new Sierra has a sleek, new look for 1999. The 2500 GMC model, however, sticks with the previous front end, which is attractive enough, until the corporation can catch up and make enough new fronts.
There are no overhead cams on truck motors made by GM, but this time they made up the difference with cubic inches. The huge 6.7-liter Ford V10 responds well, but the GMC engine is 7.4 liters — larger with eight cylinders than the Ford is with 10. The GMC engine is armed with pushrods and can produce large low-end power. It has 355 foot-pounds of torque, although you have to rev to 4,000 RPMs to get to that peak, while it also delivers 300 horsepower at 4,800 RPMs.
The GMC Sierra is very well refined, and has comfortably contoured seats, and they came with leather covers.
The new GMC had a base price of only $23,171.55, but fitting it with the options such as speed-sensitive power steering, power windows, locks and windows, air-conditioning, the six-way power seats, and others, jacks it to $30,827.55. Having driven several other Sierras, with various forms of normal cab and extended cab and all sorts of different engines, this is a very sophisticated machine.
Curiously, there was no alloy wheels, just basic truck tires and wheels. Out of six or eight GMC Sierra pickups I’ve driven, this was a simple one, and cutting out a few features can drop the sticker under $30,000. If you added in the price of the four-wheel drive and the special alloy wheels, you’d be up to about $33,000.
The GMC Sierra 2500 has a towing payload of 10,000 pounds,identical to the F250, and an 8,600-pound payload, only 200 pounds less than the Ford, although it weighs 800 pounds less than the F250.
Instrumentation is unexcelled on the GMC, although it seems there must have been somebody freaking out when he designed the cupholder. You pull down a trap door that approximates the size of the glove compartment, although this one is located right in the lower middle of the dashboard. That makes it easy to reach, but it doesn’t need to be enormous.
Interesting, but you tend to get used to things like that, although I must say that when I had a fast-food cup of pop in the little rubber housing, I thought all was well until I went around a corner and it somersaulted right out across the carpeting.
Overall, the GMC is quite easy to drive, and well-mannered in its handling and braking. To be a fair challenge, it takes some getting used to because of its size, which is so much larger than the normal “big” pickups. But everything is efficiently laid out, and easy to read.
Examining these two huge trucks makes you realize how competitive the truck business is. Both are very similar in a lot of ways, but different in the ways those two manufacturers always have been different. Mainly, though, they do the same thing in very similar fashion, and choosing one is simply a matter of preference. That’s the way car-buying should be.
And with these crew cabs, you can have your SUV, and your pickup truck as well.
GS400 adds pizzazz to lofty Lexus reputation
[Cutline info:
#1 (blue GS400) The GS400 is the newest member of the Lexus clan, and is claimed to be the fastest available 4-door sedan.
#2 (gold LS400) All signs point to the LS400 as the flagship Lexus luxury sedan.
#3 (LS400 navigation system) The LS400’s optional navigation system is complex to program, but pinpoints car location and destination.
#4 (ES300) The least-expensive Lexus, the ES300 is a thoroughly renovated upscale version of the Toyota Camry. ]
Every manufacturer claims to build quality cars, but Toyota is in the odd position of being critized because its cars are too good.
Toyota’s reputation for high technology, dependable and trouble-free operation, and long-lasting durability was enhanced when the company also retained customers who were moving upscale by fashioning an entirely separate luxury network under the Lexus nameplate. Lexus dealers aren’t plentiful across the country, although you can find a couple of them in the Twin Cities. They all emphasize treating customers with great sensitivity and care, wiping out the fast-hustle reputation car-sellers have spent so many years earning.
About the only complaints of Toyota/Lexus cars came from driving enthusiasts. I think fun is an important ingredient in driving, but some of these types started out fixing their car’s problems so regularly that they still equate hauling an MGB’s engine into the kitchen for repairs with a car having “character.” Toyota products work equally well for car-haters, so they gained a reputation for being appliance-like.
Toasters and refrigerators simply keep on working without complaints, but you also don’t hear many people praising them for being fun to operate. Test-drives in all three new Lexus models indicates that the appliance reputation may have to go.
The LS400 luxury sedan started out very good and has evolved as a classy $60,000 factory flagship. The Lexus ES300 is basically a $30,000 Toyota Camry, revised with numerous and effective feature upgrades. And the GS400? Ah, that’s the prize that should change the appliance image once and for all — a $45,000 sizzler that gives instant credibility to the claim of the fastest four-door sedan available.
GS400 ROARS
To fully appreciate the GS400, you have to realize that it is the latest stopgap between the top-end LS400 and the entry-level Lexus ES300. A year ago, both a GS300 and GS400 were introduced, with styling that makes a surprising splash in the Toyota/Lexus swimming pool. Instead of the blunt, squarish formal look of the LS400, or the sleek, sweeping lines of the ES300, the GS models have a fast-drooping nose, rushing up and over the passenger compartment and finishing in an abruptly chopped rear end. It resembles other Toyota/Lexus models in the way a NASCAR Winston Cup race car resembles a showroom sedan.
The GS300 is an excellent car with excellent handling and a steady 3.0-liter six-cylinder engine, costing about $35,000. Compared to other Toyota/Lexus models dipping one toe into the pool to test the temperature, the GS300 is a safe dive off the low board. But the GS400 is a triple-somersault off the high board.
The GS400 has the 4.0-liter V8 of the bigger LS400, but it has been tweaked with valving to spew out 300 horsepower and 310 foot-pounds of torque, 10 more on both counts than the heftier LS400. It also has a measured top speed of 149 miles per hour, which not only is BMW-like, but would be a lot of fun to drive on an autobahn.
The GS400’s looks are not unattractive. It has a mean and hungry demeanor, to say nothing of a very impressive 0.29 coefficient of drag. The test vehicle was enhanced by being painted “Spectra Blue Mica,” which is P.R.-speak for a distinctive, penetrating blue color that is a bit darker than royal but brighter than navy. It gets my vote as the best car color of the year.
The electronic five-speed automatic transmission seems a letdown, particularly if Lexus expects the GS400 to challenge the hottest German sedans, but the car comes through on that count, too. There are two little oval buttons located on the steering wheel shafts, identical left and right, just next to where your thumbs rest while gripping the wheel. There are similar buttons on the backside of the steering wheel, where you can’t even see them.
They are shift buttons, just like on Formula 1 race cars. You can take off, then use your fingertips to upshift by pushing either button on the back of the wheel, or you can use either thumb to downshift one gear at a time by pushing the buttons on the front. When I first drove a GS400, I assumed they were audio control buttons, and the word “Down” on the buttons meant you could turn down the volume. Coincidentally, when I accelerated hard with that car at first, I apparently gripped the wheel extra hard as the revs built, and wondered why the car upshifted again and again so soon.
It was worth a chuckle, and then a lot of fun, after I realized that those logically-placed buttons I had squeezed were there for upshifting. Being front-engine with rear-drive, the GS400 would be a handful in slippery circumstances, even with high-tech traction control, but it unquestionably is a handful of fun in the dry.
The GS400 handles well, thanks to four-wheel independent, double-wishbone suspension with gas shocks, and speed-progressive rack-and-pinion steering. And the discs on all four wheels stop the 16-inch wheels and their high-performance tires swiftly.
Typically, the car has all the latest safety stuff — dual front airbags, front seat-housed side-impact airbags, and pretensioning harnesses with force limiters. The leather seats with genuine walnut dash trim and dual-zone climate control with automatic recirculation and smog and air filters, plus a seven-speaker audio system with 215 watts, may seem more in the luxury line than the sporty image the car generates, but they are standard. So is the power tilt and telescoping steering wheel that tilts away when you enter or exit.
The test car jumped from a base price of $45,505 to $49,146 because of the added in-dash six-disc CD player, the one-touch sunroof, heated front seats, and high-intensity discharge headlights.
LS400 CLASS
The top-of-the-line LS400 is, like the GS400, front-engine/rear-drive, and it weighs 200 pounds more, at 3,890 pounds, to house the extra room inside. It also is 196.7 inches long (compared to the GS400’s 189), and a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds (in Automobile magazine’s trial run) compared to a 6-flat by the GS400.
The car was good when it came out, and has been refined, cautiously, since then. The biggest trouble is the fluctuation of the Japanese yen. When it came out, the LS400 was a bargain-priced copy of a Mercedes; now that the Germans have tightened up their production and lowered prices, the LS400 is now plenty costly by comparison.
One impressive new feature is the optional navigation system package, which costs $5,405, including an in-dash CD player, sunroof, heated seats and gas-discharge headlights, in addition to a computerized navigation system.
The navigation system has a dash-mounted video screen, which can summon up destinations by address or intersection, and displays your whereabouts on that screen, which you can zoom in or out for size perspective. It worked very well, although I must say that setting it was much more complex than necessary. It was complex enough that you should pull off the road to input your destination, and it informs you of how dangerous it is to take your eye off the road — every time you start up.
The LS400 has all the safety and handling features of the GS400, and it had them first, of course. Having the same engine is responsible for the swift performance, although the engine is tuned to be a subdued-sounding thing that purrs, while the same powerplant is tuned to sound like the monster is can be in the GS400.
ES300 FEATURES
When I first drove the current version of the ES300, it was within a couple of weeks of my first test-drive of the then-newly designed Toyota Camry. In talking to some factory folks, I was informed of the hundred-and-some upgrades done to the seats, the instruments, the engine and transmission, the instrument panel, and virtually everything else on the ES300.
I was a bit dismayed at the $32,000 price tag back then. But two weeks later, when I got the new Camry, all I could think about were the numerous enhancements made for ES300 form, and when the Camry’s sticker was $28,000, it seemed that the ES300 was truly a bargain.
Years pass. Now you can get a loaded Camry up to $30,000, and the test-car ES300 base price was a mere $30,905. In test form, it had risen to $36,412, because of the leather trim, memory driver’s seat settings, a six-disc changer in the dash, a power sunroof, heated front seats and vehicle skid control.
In silhouette, the ES300 is the same as the Camry, which I find very pleasant to look at, and a vast improvement over the previous Camry styling, which looked like different committees had done each segment.
The 3.0-liter V6 has dual overhead cams and continuously variable valve timing, with a four-speed electronically controlled automatic transmission with traction control. With all the safety devices of its more costly brethren, the ES300 also has genuine walnut interior trim and electroluminescent (Toyota’s term) instrumentation.
With all three Lexus models, the traditional dependability is built in, and must be well-appreciated by its owners. The GS400 helps toss aside that old cloak of dullness, and it reeks with character, even if you’ll never need to overhaul that engine in your kitchen.
Say ‘Hi’ with more respect to restyled 2000 Neon
Remember when Chrysler Corporation first came out with the Neon? They had a great advertising campaign, with billboards that flashed the almost-happy-face front end of the car, suggesting we all “Say Hi to Neon.”
The whole idea was to establish the Neon as a user-friendly car by taking it to extremes. The car was so friendly, you were supposed to say “Hi” to it.
Neon has done right well for Chrysler, whether in Dodge or Plymouth livery. But for the 2000 model year, it’s time for an upgrade. As it turns out, the 2000 model Neon is already out, and I got to test drive one. Guess what? If you talk to this Neon, you’d better be a bit more formal — maybe bow and say, “Hi, sir,” or “Hi, maam.”
The new Neon has grown up, become sophisticated, and has taken on the mature look of something more than a cutesy car aimed at capturing a cult market.
Since the Neon first came out, Chrysler has learned a few things about building cars, and came out with slick new computer-designed versions of the Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler Concorde when it was the turn of those full-size sedans to be revised. Now, it’s the Neon’s turn, and you can measure how much Chrysler has learned by the look of the Neon.
At first glance, it looks a lot like a downsized Intrepid, which is high praise, indeed.
Gone is that bug-eyed look, replaced by more aerodynamic headlights and a grille accented by a horizontal bar. The stance, in silhouette, has a gracefully rising and tapered passenger compartment, coming down to a high-backed rear end, with a well-sculptured rear panel, flanked by stylishly cut taillights.
In overview, it looks like a slick, expensive little compact sedan, which would be OK, but that’s only half right. It is slick, but it is not expensive. The test car carried the Plymouth nameplate, a Plymouth Neon LX, and in its fully-loaded form it cost a mere $15,955.
That keeps the Neon in the heat of competition against some of the best economically compact sedans in the marketplace: Honda Civic, Saturn, Toyota Corolla, Mazda Protege, Cavalier and Escort. All of them come in at just around $15,000, and all of them represent bargains in the ever-escalating world of car prices.
The Neon had fallen behind in that segment, but the new one is certain to thrust the Neon right up to the top of that pack.
NEON LIGHTS UP
With cars averaging over $21,000 these days, and people willingly shelling out over $30,000 a copy for SUVs, it’s refreshing to find a quality vehicle in the $15,000 range. And Neons can be had for much less.
The LX test car had a base price of $12,390. For that, you get the 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine with a single overhead-camshaft and 16 valves — the only engine available. You also get the manual five-speed, which has a smooth shifting action that would put a lot of sportier cars to shame.
Standard features include airbags, side impact door beams, front disc/rear drum brakes, power steering, four-wheel indepencdent suspension with stabilizer bars front and rear, a rear defroster, intermittent windshield wipers, a full console, six-speaker stereo, and a trunk light.
But the test car truly came alive, thanks to the LX option bin.
A $2635 option package includes air conditioning, power front windows, central power locking, heated outside mirrors, keyless entry a security alarm, power trunk release, oversized 15-inch wheels, tilt steering column, foglights, and leather-wrapped steering wheel and shift knob. Another option package for $740 gets you four-wheel disc brakes with antilock, and traction control. Cruise control costs $225, and stylish aluminum wheels cost $355.
A couple of factory discounts go along with those packages, keeping the sticker to $15,995.
Most significant among those options are the wheels and brakes. The 15-inch alloy wheels add a great deal of flash to the design, especially with that Intrepid-like wheelwell opening in the front. And the bigger tires add to the Neon’s handling, while the four-wheel disc brakes make a big difference in braking distances.
The original Neon had a 2.0-liter engine, same as now, but you could get an optional, dual-overhead cam version with added horsepower. You also could get a coupe. No longer, the 132-horsepower version is the only one. That engine, when the car was introduced, was a new powerplant, and it was loud. That is a trait of four-cylinder engines in need of refinement.
The same engine in the new Neon has been smoothed out a little, but it still can get loud when the revs build toward the 6,500 red line, and the car is fun to drive with the five-speed, so you tend to rev it a lot. The buzziness as the revs build is OK with me, in fact, I tend to like the concept of hearing and feeling an engine when the revs get up near shiftpoints — sort of an audible tachometer.
SAY ‘HI’ TO THE INSIDE
The big news to the Neon is the exterior, where the body has been stretched by about 2.5 inches, and the wheelbase is about an inch longer than the original. It also is marginally wider. That gives the interior more room, and the trunk is definitely roomy, especially considering this is a compact. Rear seat room is comfortable for a 6-footer, and spacious for anyone shorter than that.
I had mixed feelings about a couple of interior features.
First, I like the textured, two-tone vinyl that now covers the dashboard. It isn’t just the same old seedy-looking plastic that a lot of inexpensive cars use as a kiss-off. It’s still vinyl, but it’s got a neat feel to it, like it’s higher class.
White-backed instruments also add a touch of character, which I like. And the heat/air controls are rotating circular switches, which are the most efficient for adjusting without taking your eyes off the road. Cruise control is actuated by switches that require both thumbs — the left to set the cruise, and the right to cancel or resume. The optional power windows are only in the front, with crank-down windows in the rear, which isn’t a bad idea, when you think about it. The only worry with power windows is that small children might fiddle with the switches or possibly get a finger caught. Crank windows in the rear solve those concerns, although they also prevent the driver from being able to lower or raise the rear windows while driving.
I liked the seats and the steering wheel less. The front bucket seats are covered with thick and luxurious stuff, and they look good, but I found them to be too soft where I hoped they’d be firm.
Steering wheels are pretty easy to create. You can have narrow or wide bars from the hub to the outside of the wheel, and you can make it sporty or classy, or just…there. In the Neon, there is a wide, horizontal bar, reaching the outer rim of the wheel with two struts each, left and right. The only thing is, the wheel looks upside down, regardless of which way you have it pointing.
Those, however, are nitpicks, and would be, whether the car cost $30,000 or $20,000. At $15,000, those little things are a lot easier to live with. Especially since the Neon LX accelerates well, corners with very good agility — thanks to the larger alloy wheels and 185/60R15 tires, and stops smoothly, but with surprising suddenness, because of the four-wheel discs.
All in all, the original Neon was still worth saying “Hi” to, but a lot of customers, faced with the very strong competition, might have been saying “Goodbye” instead in recent years. The 2000 model year Neon LX will bring them back, and proves that you can still find good, enjoyable transportation without spending much over $15,000.
Huge Excursion aims challenge at Suburban
[photo caption stuff:
#1 — The new and enormous Ford Excursion was introduced to the automotive media last week amid the glorious Big Sky Country of Montana.
#2 — As if there needed to be evidence that the Excursion is the biggest SUV ever conceived, it was displayed next to a General Motors Suburban, which is huge in its own right, but 7.2 inches shorter than the Expedition. ]
There is no question why Ford Motor Company decided to build the Excursion. It was, plain and simple, an attempt to go directly after what Ford folks call the “large SUV segment.” And that, plain and simple, is defined by the Chevrolet and GMC Suburban.
When Sports Utility Vehicles first came out, there were Jeeps and Broncos and Blazers. Then there were downsized versions, and midsized versions, and on up to over 40 varieties of SUVs. But as the manufacturers stampeded to capture some of the lucrative market share from the U.S. craze for SUVs, there always was a Suburban. The Suburban was the longest and largest SUV imaginable, and its downsized versions, the Chevy Tahoe and the GMC Yukon, are pretty huge by themselves. Ford went after those with the Expedition, and the Lincoln-version Navigator — both of which were bigger than the Tahoe/Yukon. But General Motors could continue to advertise that the Suburban still stood alone, as the largest SUV on the market.
So for the year 2000, Ford is going after the big guy, with plans to produce 50,000 Excursions, many of which already have been ordered. U.S. buyers clearly believe that bigger is better, and the Excursion is the longest, largest SUV made, or even imagined. It is 7.2 inches longer than a Suburban, 3.3 inches wider and from 4.3 to 5.8 inches taller, conclusively deciding which is the king of the road, size-wise. Ford hopes its technology will also make the Excursion king of the enormo-SUVs in sales, someday, but it knows it has three decades of Suburban tradition to overcome.
“The Suburban has been out there for 30 years, and there is great loyalty among Suburban buyers,” said J.C. Collins, Ford’s marketing wizard on the Excursion project. He addressed a gathering of selected automotive media types last week at the introduction for the Excursion, which was held in Montana’s Big Sky country, up in the mountains near Yellowstone. Interesting that while environmental groups are ripping Ford for bringing out an enormous, fuel-guzzling vehicle into the market during the ongoing fight for cleaner air and more fuel-efficient vehicles, Ford chooses to introduce this monster under the clear, blue sky of the Montana mountains, with the rivers-that-run-through-it splashing alongside the highways.
When asked specifically about bringing in a vehicle that can estimate 10-18 miles per gallon but might get closer to the 10, Collins said: “We’re entering the segment as environmentally friendly as possible, but we’re entering the market.”
Impressively, the Excursion qualifies as a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV), because its engines develop up to 43 percent lower emissions than the law requires in all 50 states. Also, nearly 20 percent of the vehicle is made from recycled material, whether steel, aluminum, rubber or plastic. And 85 percent of the new Excursion is recyclable.
The Excursion will start with a base price of $34,135 in two-wheel-drive base form, with the LTD four-wheel-drive version starting at $40,880. Ford says that’s reasonable, because the base Excursion delivers greater capacities than the base Suburban 1500, and will be less-expensive than the larger Suburban 2500 series. It is targeted at consumers who will tow heavy trailers or use it for vacation-loads, although Ford is aware it also will become a team bus for youth sports loads, and estimates that 30 percent of the buyers will be women.
It was almost comical to hear repeated references marketing references to growth in the segment, and how the segment had doubled in the last eight years, and how the lure of getting a piece of such a huge segment was what caused Ford to come up with the Excursion. “That segment was fairly dormant until eight years ago, and since then it has doubled,” Collins said. “There were 150,000 sold in that segment last year, and we couldn’t afford to leave that segment lie.”
When I finally asked him what exactly the segment consisted of, he said, “The Suburban.”
That’s all.
We were allowed to drive various Excursions on and off the highways, but only after promising not to disclose our driving impressions until August. My notes might be a bit musty by then, but at least we can talk about the concept and the intention of the Excursion without any embargo.
HUGE, BUT SLEEK
Appearance-wise, I thought the Excursion looked less forbidding than I anticipated. I’m the type who believes we’d all be best off driving the smallest, most efficient vehicle that serves our specific needs, and I believed that nothing needed to be larger than a Suburban. But the Excursion looks quite sleek, actually, and maybe that’s why it doesn’t seem so huge, because the stubbier Expedition/Navigator actually look taller and large, because of the proportions.
The Excursion weighs either 7,190 or 7,688 pounds, depending on which engine you get in the 4 x 4 form. if that is an asset. The Excursion comes in nine-passenger form, with 165 cubic feet of cargo volume behind the front seats, and 48 cubic feet of stowage area behind the third row of seats. If you remove the third seat, cargo capacity rises to 100.7 cubic feet. A Class 4 trailer hitch, rated at pulling 10,000 pounds, is standard. (The Suburban provides that much towing capacity, but only if you choose the larger 2500 series model.)
The rear end features a glass liftgate for the upper portion, and two thick-but-light doors, made of plastic composite.
For power, the Excursion can be obtained with a 5.4-liter overhead-cam V8, but only in two-wheel-drive form. And anyone paying over $35,000 and living in Up North winters would be clueless if they bought one without four-wheel drive. That way, you can choose between two engines — a 6.8-liter V10 or a 7.3-liter turbocharged diesel. The 5.4 has 255 horsepower and 350 foot-pounds of torque; the 6.8 V10 has 310 horses and 425 foot-pounds of torque; the 7.3 turbodiesel has 235 horsepower and an amazing 500 foot-pounds of torque.
Robin Miller, who worked on the team that designed the platform, explained how Ford had figured it would be an easy move to take the new F250 crew cab truck platform, and cover it with a long, large SUV body. But it didn’t quite work out that way.
“There were a lot more changes than we anticipated from the F250,” said Miller. “Even though there are 60 percent common parts, there are 1,000 parts involved. The suspension is similar to the F250, but we ended up redoing and retuning everything before we were through.”
The 4×4 version has leaf springs front and rear with live axles, while the 4×2 (two-wheel drive) version hasthe old but reliable Ford I-Beam on the front axle.
WHO’S RUNNING THE ASYLUM?
Over the years, Ford trucks and SUVs have traditionally been hardier off the road if a bit harsh on the road, while GM’s counterparts have been too flexy off the road, but softer and “floatier” on the road, with the driver more insulated from smaller road irregularities. Neither side is wrong, they’re just different. Both have moved toward a middle ground in recent years, but do you think you could find a dedicated Ford fan who would praise a Chevy, or vice versa?
One of the problems Ford had to overcome when designing the suspension, amazingly enough, went down to market research of how to attract both Ford folks and Suburban buyers. Companies do tireless quantities of research before building any vehicle these days, but Ford actually sought out Suburban owners and asked them to critique the new Excursion. That’s like asking someone who is allergic to water how they’d feel about swimming the English Channel.
Suburban owners told Ford folks that they thought the Excursion suspension was too firm, too harsh, had too much jounce, and didn’t have the same “floating” feeling that Suburbans have in their handling. Suburbans, they said, float along, insulating drivers from the feel of the road. Those are the same characteristics that have caused observers to criticize GM vehicles in recent years, yet here we have Suburban owners criticizing the prototype Excursion’s road feel, which is no surprise. The surprise is that Ford scurried around to make all sorts of changes and alterations to accommodate those GM types.
“The challenge was to refine the Suburban concept and add some finesse,” said Miller. “We wanted to soften up the suspension to get what people liked about the Suburban, then add some finesse. We altered the tires, shocks and spring characteristics of our original to come up with a compromise, and we think we got it.”
While such moves may have impressed Suburban drivers, most of them are GM zealots who wouldn’t buy a Ford produce at any cost, just as Ford types won’t be buying Chevys. But the corporate stance from Ford is that SUVs are something consumers need and want, and if they want the biggest SUV on the market, Ford wanted to be able to supply it.
The Excursion hasn’t overlooked safety, either. Along with all the anticipated crashworthy items that allow it to meet all car crash tests, it takes into account the current controversy about how big trucks and SUVs are hazardous to any normal or small car it might encounter. The Excursion has a blocker beam up front, which is a cross-member located under and behind the front bumper and allows it to engage any car at the proper height so that both vehicles’ safety systems are activated. The trailer hitch assembly accomplishes the same at the rear.
Ford executives say they expect this “segment” to continue to grow. Indeed, with this introduction, the segment has doubled in size — from the Suburban, to the Suburban and Excursion.
Also, they don’t think the Excursion will intrude on Expedition/Navigator sales. As one marketing type said: “If the Expedition fills the bill for size, why would you spend the extra money for this?”
That’s a question that once was asked about the Expedition being favored over the Explorer, and if anyone can figure out the answer, we might better understand the unique-to-the-U.S. love affair with huge trucks.
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