Driving enthusiasts can say ‘Si’ to new Civic
[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1— The Si model injects a bargain-dose of sportiness to the economical Honda Civic.
#2— The $17,000 Civic Si is powered by a DOHC, VTEC 1.6-liter 4 that pumps out 160 horsepower.
#3— Honda’s Prelude SH meets all the demands of a high-tech, personal-luxury coupe. ]
Driving westbound along Grand Av. in Duluth, I pulled into a Spur station in the Honda Civic Si that I was test-driving. As I stopped, I noticed a really neat Honda motorcycle parked by the sidewalk. The young guy working inside said it was his, a 600-cc. CBR that looked like a cafe racer.
“What’s the redline on the tach?” I asked him.
“Thirteen thousand,” he said. “But I noticed your Civic, that’s got a VTEC, right?”
“Yes, it’s the ‘Si’ model, and it’s got a 1,600-cc. engine with a redline of 8,000.”
Honda drivers discuss such things. Drivers of other things don’t, simply because normal cars can boast of huge displacement numbers and impressive horsepower figures, but they run out of revs at about 5,000 or 6,000 RPMs, and attempts to go higher would require a magnet to pick up the shrapnel.
With Honda, the capability of high-revving screamers used to be confined to sporty motorcycles, which perform at RPM reaches incomprehensible to Harleys, which have now capitalized on their low-revving limitations by promoting their low-rumble sound. Honda, meanwhile, has gone on, conducting factory racing programs that first dominated Formula 1 and then CART Champ Cars, while developing techniques for extracting every bit of power from a limited-displacement size engine.
Other companies, of course, also develop powerful racing engines, although the ones in NASCAR or the Indy Racing League let independent engine builders, with after-market parts, turn their basic engines into devices that gain publicity and acclaim but have nothing to do with what they send to the assembly lines for the cars we buy for the street.
Honda, however, has directly applied its racing tricks to its production cars. All Honda engines have overhead camshafts and multiple valves, and Honda also has perfected what it calls “VTEC,” for variable timing and electronic control of its valvetrain operation. Varied valve-timing is like getting a specific tune-up every RPM. The VTEC lets the engine adjust to varying altitudes or weather conditions, and actually lets the valve timing adjust to your driving.
You may not need to know all that stuff, so long as you get enough power when you need it, and your car’s engine runs with optimum efficiency, for the sake of fuel economy, emissions, durability and infrequent repair and tune-up intervals. Some companies get by with ancient technology and make up for shortcomings with bigger engines, as if more sheer power can replace technology. Honda prefers the advanced technology that can extract remarkable doses of power, making over-achievers out of comparatively small engines.
CORPORATE HOT RODS
Honda first installed VTEC on its Acura NSX sports car, a marvel of such technology, with a VTEC V6 and a stunning, aluminum body. It also costs about $90,000. The VTEC technology trickled down through the Integra, the $26,000 Prelude, and on into the Accord and Civic. In Civic trim, the technology was aimed at high economy, leaving the higher-performance to the costlier models.
When Honda redesigned the entry-level Civic in 1991 to add a sleek, 2-door coupe, I wondered why the company never really tried to emphasize its sporty lines by offering some sporty touches. You could only get pudgy, standard tires, and normal wheels with simple, cookie-cutter-like wheel covers. Backyard hot-rodders from a new era started fiddling with computer chips, and found ways to spend all sorts of money to make $15,000 Civic coupes perform better, while also installing their own alloy wheels and low-profile tires, in recent years.
For 1999, Honda took matters into its own hands, and produced the “Si” model of the Civic. It’s interesting that it’s “Si,” and not “SI,” because in Spanish, of course, Si means yes. And after driving the Civic Si, I can say that anywhere in the world, the Civic Si commands a resounding “Yes!”
Shortly before I drove the Civic Si, I test-drove a Prelude SH , loaded with technology on a larger, costlier scale. Both had 5-speed manual transmissions.
The Prelude has been Honda’s flagship sports coupe, a rolling test-bed for futuristic technology, and the new one meets that demand, albeit on a limited-production scale. In the Accord, the 2.2-liter 4-cylinder performs well, with single-overhead camshaft and four valves per cylinder. In the Prelude, the 2.2 gets dual overhead cams and the VTEC performance treatment that boosts it to 200 horsepower.
The Prelude SH sticks to the road like a magnet because it has race-bred double-wishbone upper and lower suspension front and rear, plus stabilizer bars and an active torque transfer system on the front-wheel-drive wheels to send a larger share of torque to the outside wheel in any turning maneuver for improved cornering.
Typically, the Prelude still meets all the requirements of a personal luxury coupe, with limited-size occupants only in the small rear seat, and the SH version boosts it to the level of almost any all-out sports car. Certainly a sophisticated way to have your luxury leather interior and ear-shattering audio system, while also satisfying that fiendish urge to outrun most cars from a stoplight and virtually all others under $30,000 if there’s a curve involved.
CIVIC: REAL-WORLD FUN
Personally, much as I like the Prelude, I prefer the look of the previous generation, which was more dramatically styled, front to rear. The new Prelude has unusual squarish headlights and extremely unimaginative horizontal taillights. It has a slinky look to it, to be sure, but I prefer the look of the Accord coupe, for a few thousand less.
Meanwhile, back to the Civic. The Si is a new gem in Honda’s massive and impressive jewel case. The 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine is a standard of reliability and economic efficiency in base form, with its single-overhead-cam, 16-valve design, but even the hot-rod tuners have to be amazed at what the company did by adding dual overhead cams to that little motor and getting 160 horsepower from it.
While it would be easy to drive the car routinely, shifting at 5,000 revs, doing so would never get you into the power range, which peaks at 7,600 revs. And it loves to be driven hard, with the needle zooming across those neat, italic numbers on the tachometer on its merry way to 8,000. Driving it, shall we say, enthusiastically still showed 32.5 miles per gallon. It undoubtedly would have been even better, but nobody from Honda told me I didn’t have to rev it up on every shift.
Steering is precise and the handling is excellent. Seats are firmly bolstered and very comfortable, and all the controls are efficiently placed. My only complaint is that while the 5-speed manual works flawlessly, the Si cries out for a 6-speed. Honda has closed the ratios of the 5-speed for performance, and the sound from 4,000 RPMs while cruising makes you feel that you should shift again, even though the revs are OK, considering you can go to 8,000. A sixth gear would allow you to cruise the same freeways at 2,500 revs at 70 miles per hour, and you’d probably get 40 miles per gallon.
You get 4-wheel disc brakes with the Si, but you can’t get antilock brakes, which is curious, although I am not convinced that having ABS pump the brakes for you is always an asset. That was another way of keeping cost down, and as a bargain performer, the Civic Si can’t be touched. Even in-house at Honda.
Compare the numbers: The Prelude costs $25,950 and has a 2.2-liter 4-cylinder engine with dual-overhead camshafts, 16 valves and a potent 200 horsepower at 7,000 RPMs, plus a torque peak of 156 foot-pounds at 5,250 RPMs; the Civic Si costs $17,860 and has a 1.6-liter 4-cylinder with dual-overhead cams, 16 valves, 160 horsepower at 7,600 RPMs and 111 foot-pounds of torque at a 7,000-RPM peak.
Unquestionably, the Prelude SH will run away and hide from the Civic Si — and most other cars, as well — in all-out performance. Like the Prelude, the Civic allows you to taste all the wonders of cutting-edge technology. Unlike the speedy Prelude, if you want to run the revs up to 8,000, you can do it without guaranteeing yourself a speeding ticket. But the Civic Si shows that you can satisfy all the demands of budget and everyday driving while still operating a car with the fun quotient on overload.
In fact, compared to other cars that deliver similar pleasure, you could afford to buy a Civic Si and have enough left over to buy a Honda CBR motorcycle.
Mustang GT kicks stronger than ever after 35 years
[Cutline stuff: (Photos by John Gilbert)
#1— The Mustang GT stood, fittingly, beneath the American flag as the ponycar icon of the U.S. for 35 years.
#2— The ’99 Mustang GT looked ready to take off on the streets of Ely.
#3— Seat travel has been increased to make the sporty interior of the Mustang more user-friendly for drivers and their legs.
#4— The sculptured lines of the hood are carried through artfully as the outline for the grille.
Wnen Ford rolled out the Mustang for the first time in 1964, it was an instant success — a long hood/short deck, 2-door coupe that began life aimed at being a personal sporty car that was inexpensive to buy and to operate.
It has continued to dominate the “ponycar” segment that it, and its horsey name, invented. In fact, it continues to dominate that segment even while its prime competitors from General Motors, the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird, are facing dwindling sales and heading toward apparent extinction.
It only took a couple of years before Ford’s corporate hot-rod types stuffed a V8 with more power under the hood and made a succession of screaming high-performance cars that carried on into the 1970s. That theme was revived during the ’90s, and as this decade heads for a finish, the 1999 version of the Mustang appears well-prepared to charge on into the new century.
In the past few years, the basic V6 Mustang and the sportier GT have been joined by a Special Vehicle Team version, the Cobra, which has turned out to be one of the nation’s top overall high-performance machines. It includes all sorts of suspension and performance upgrades, most specifically a hand-built, all-aluminum version of the 4.6-liter V8, which includes replacing the single overhead camshafts with dual cams and four valves per cylinder.
While the Cobra continues to be worth its $30,000 price tag, everyday drivers need to be cautioned to not overlook the Mustang GT, which is a strong performer on its own, and a comparative bargain at $20,000.
I recently test-drove a glistening “Bright Atlantic Blue Metallic” Mustang GT, and found it, as usual, to be more than I bargained for, and far closer to the Cobra in overall driving pleasure, while even having a couple of distinct advantages when compared to its costlier twin.
DIFFERENT LOOK
The Mustang was a tight, lean and sleek machine through its term that ended a year ago. I must say, it took awhile before I thought the new Mustang was as good looking as the previous model; in fact, I still like several things about the predecessor better.
For example, style dictated change, and form didn’t exactly follow function with the new look. The rear also has a stacked-up look, as if designers had more of the new molded plastic material than they needed, so they used it anyhow to make the car look higher where it used to taper off into smaller, triple-lens taillights. The front is a little taller, appearing to have more body material because of thinner, wraparound headlights, and the look doesn’t match the sleeker former car. I grew to like that view after noticing how the little raised creases on the hood sweep down and neatly measure off against the tapered outer edges of the grille.
My main complaint, though, is that to make the new car look more impressive, it wears a larger air scoop on the hood, and tall, thin air-scoops on both flanks, where they look as though they might cool the rear disc brakes. True, the engine breathes well through new manifolding, but it gets no air from the scoop, because it’s a phony. And the car does have four-wheel disc brakes in GT form, but those side scoops don’t let any air in, because they, too, are fakes.
Call it form following nonfunction.
All Mustangs have the “35th Anniversary” emblem on the sides of the front fenders.
But while you can quibble about the look of the new Mustang, you have to like the changes made under the skin. For the first time, a traction-control system that retards the power when sensors detect wheelspin is available as an option. That should help foul-weather traction, and the Mustang will need help in an Up North winter, with front-engine and rear-drive, and while it wasn’t slippery enough to check out the system this time, it can be controlled by a switch on the console.
The new platform makes a couple other significant improvements. One is that the turning radius is vastly improved. Its turning circle is reduced almost a full three feet.
Speaking of the console, Ford’s engineers struck out on the cupholding front in the GT. The console has two cupholders indented, with the rear one being larger, and the front one conventional pop-can size. That front one held my coffee cup too, except for one problem: Shifting.
You can shift into first well, but if you pull the shift lever back into second, it either won’t engage, or it will give your coffee cup or pop can a quick somersault. On into third, and you’re fine, but coming back down to fourth clouts the cup again, generally blocking the shifter from engaging. It may be a nitpick, but if you move the pop can or conventional coffee cup back to the second cupholder, you’ll find that it is too big. And hopefully you’ll realize it before the cup or can does an “endo” into the back seat as you accelerate.
Inside, the front bucket seats are cloth, and have a sprinting horse embossed high on each backrest. The power seat option, which was on the test car, is 6-way instead of the 4-way of the former Mustang. A drop of 40 feet, 8 inches to 37 feet, 11 inches, is remarkable.
Another major move is in bucket seat travel. At 6-feet, I used to find that it was difficult to position the seat perfectly in Mustangs, mainly because I like to sit with the backrest nearly straight up, which requires sliding the seat back pretty far. And the Mustang seat never wanted to slide back far enough. The new one, however, has a 1-inch longer track that alleviates that problem.
The Mustang remains basically a 2-seater, with the tiny rear seats only for short people or short hops.
CAPTIVATING SOUND
An impressive sound system, the Mach 460, makes your radio, tapes or discs come to life with dual amplifiers and a powered subwoffer. Driving even a short distance with the bass turned up full will cause the car to reverberate like a bass drum. Turning the bass down about to halfway still affords plenty of boom.
But the most musical part of the Mustang GTs sound has absolutely nothing to do with the stereo system. It has to do with stepping on the gas, building up speed in the 250-horsepower (with 290 foot-pounds of torque) V8, and then letting off as you downshift. Decelerating toward a stoplight produces this wonderful, burbling, rapping sound that can take you back to the good-ol’ days when restrained hot-rodders would put glass-pack mufflers on their V8s, trying to get close to that perfect sound.
There is an interesting story behind that tuned GT exhaust. The prestigious Automobile magazine recently listed its favorite things in the automotive world, and it listed the best exhaust sound as coming from the Mustang SVT Cobra. No mention of the GT, which is a mistake. Perhaps the folks at Automobile don’t realize it, or maybe they haven’t condescended to test-drive the less-exotic GT version of the Mustang.
But there are government restrictions to how much you can free up the exhaust flow in an engine, and the more power an engine has, the less you can fiddle with the exhaust, to free it up or to tune the sound. The Cobra V8 has four cams and 32 valves, and turns out 300 horsepower, which means tuning the exhaust note is restricted. It sounds good, but just pretty good compared to the GT.
The GT has plenty of power, despite having only single overhead cams and two valves per cylinder. With 260 horses peaking at 5,250 RPMs, an increase of 35 over the same engine last year, and the 300 torque peak at 400, an increase of 10, Ford engineers were able to play a lot more with the GT exhaust. If you were sitting on a park bench when a Cobra and then a GT drove past, judging by the exhaust note only you would guess that the GT is the hotter car.
Another tribute to how good the Cobra is, is that Ford engineers have been able to let the best features of that specialty car trickle down to the GT. The test car’s handling suspension offered excellent firmness, bolstered by the 225/55 high-performance tires, mounted on 16-inch alloy wheels. That, along with comfortable supportiveness of the seats, the neat feel of the 5-speed manual shifter (despite the heavy-duty clutch that feel heavier and heavier when your caught in bumper-to-bumper traffic) all enhance the sportiness of the GT.
An added advantage of the GT is that the 2-valve, single-cam 4.6 V8 burns regular gas and delivers good mileage for a sporty performing car. The EPA estimates are 17 city, 24 highway; I got the test car to deliver 18.3 miles per gallon in city driving and 23 on a combined city-freeway tankful.
The base Mustang can be obtained with a pushrod V6 engine, while the GT with the 4.6 V8 starts at $20,870. Adding antilock brakes, an antitheft system, remote keyless entry, traction control, cruise, rear defogger and traction control, boosts the GT’s sticker to $22,585. It may not be the Cobra, but drive it just as aggressively, and you might not find the difference all that noticeable.
Toyota builds the Lexus of full-sized pickups
The old saying is that pickup trucks are the true American sports cars. And, based on the luxurious, over-$30,000 pickup trucks I’ve tested this year, it may also be true that pickup trucks are becoming the great American luxury cars.
Those who have watched the pickup segment of the market fall three ways, to Ford, Chevrolet and Dodge, may have to brace themselves for the 2000 model year. The closely contested pickup battle just gained a new challenger: the Toyota Tundra.
If pickup trucks are truly the American sports car, the Tundra might be the Porsche of pickups. And if pickups are the all-American luxury vehicles, the Tundra certainly is the Lexus of pickups.
It used to be Ford vs. Chevy, with Dodge a distant also-ran in third when it came to pickup sales. When Dodge came out with the massive semi-styled Ram, it became a great 3-way race. Ford made a giant step when it redesigned its F150 with aerodynamic slopes and overhead-camshaft V8s. Now Chevy (and GMC) counters with an all-new Silverado (or Sierra). All three remain very competitive, with buyers lining up as perhaps the biggest loyalists in automotives.
Meantime, the three-way race among Ford’s Ranger, Chevy’s S10 and the Dodge Dakota took on challengers from Japan, as Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Mazda all built very good little pickups, although Ford has taken over majority ownership of Mazda and GM has taken over Isuzu similarly. Nowadays, Ford rebadges the Ranger as Mazda’s pickup, Chevy remakes an S10 for Isuzu to sell, and Mitsubishi’s pickups have disappeared. Nissan and Toyota have persevered, and the most recent versions of their compact pickups have been very competitive, to say nothing of durable and dependable.
But the 2000 model year is Toyota’s chosen time to tackle the big boys. The impact has been anticipated, as Toyota first called its “full-sized” truck the T-150, until Ford protested the similarity to its F150. So Toyota changed its official name to Tundra.
The Tundra, being built in a new plant in Indiana, is clearly larger than the midsized Toyota Tacoma, although it is definitely not quite as large as Ford’s F150, Chevy’s Silverado or the Dodge Ram. Those three have grown larger, and many might feel they are too large. The Tundra comes in as pretty big, but definitely not too big by comparison. It measures about 10 inches shorter, with over a foot shorter wheelbase, and is lighter and a couple inches shorter.
But the payload is almost the same. The Tundra can haul nearly 2,000 pounds, and can tow nearly 7,200 pounds, both slightly under their larger competitors, but definitely in the ballpark.
UNDER THE SKIN
The body of the Tundra is aerodynamic, not unlike the Ford, but it mostly resembles the smaller Toyota pickups, both the Tacoma and the T100 which was replaced by the Tundra. Toyota’s approach obviously was that this is a working vehicle, so it has an efficient, businesslike look, rather than a trendy, stylish exterior.
The real beauty of the Tundra, however, is under the hood.
While Ford has gone to single overhead camshafts on its F150 4.6-liter V8, GM and Dodge have stayed with pushrods. Toyota, however, doesn’t make any engines that have pushrods anymore, and, in fact, you can’t find single-overhead-cams either, as Toyota has simply gone to the highest technology — dual overhead cams, meaning one cam drives the intake valves and another drives the exhaust valves on either bank of the V8.
While Toyota has made its mark with cars like the Camry and the Corolla, it also has become a major factor in luxury cars with its Lexus line. All the while, Toyota has built virtually indestructable sport utility vehicles with the 4Runner and the larger Land Cruiser.
The flagship of the Lexus line is the LS400, which is powered by a 4.7-liter, dual overhead cam V8 with 32 valves and lots of power. So when Toyota decided to give a version of the Land Cruiser to Lexus, the LX470 was born, and a powerful version of the DOHC 4.7-liter V8 became the powerplant to make those vehicles work.
So it was an easy step for Toyota to put the same DOHC, 32-valve V8 into the Tundra. It has phenomenal potential, but it’s not bad starting out, right out of the box. So what if there never had been a full-sized pickup with dual overhead cams. There is now. The Tundra has 245 horsepower at 4,800 RPMs, and 315 foot-pounds of torque, peaking at 3,400 RPMs.
The sheer power is not the real story, though. The fact is that while the Tundra outaccelerates its competitors, its engine runs quietly and smoothly, adding to the overall feel of luxury and class that can fool you into thinking you’re driving a luxury vehicle instead of a heavy-duty worker.
PASSING THE TEST
The test vehicle was extremely swift, because it was only armed with rear-wheel (2-wheel) drive instead of the 4-wheel drive scheme that all Up North buyers undoubtedly would choose. Being just 2-wheel drive meant the test truck was lighter, more nose-heavy, and capable of rapid jolts of acceleration.
But, a pickup truck in Minnesota winters makes no sense if it doesn’t have 4-wheel drive. The test truck, with extended cab, listed for $22,250 base price, with standard features including the DOHC V8, 4-speed automatic transmission, coil spring double wishbone front suspension, air-conditioning, tilt steering wheel, cruise control, and options such as the cassette-CD-radio with six speakers, antilock brakes, power windows and mirrors, foglights, sliding rear window, and aluminum wheels with 265×16 inch tires ran it up to $25,455.
Adding 4-wheel drive would undoubtedly push that sticker right up to $30,000, but that’s where the competition stands, anyway.
I was able to get 16 miles per gallon in combined city/highway driving, against EPA estimates of 15 city and 18 highway. I drove it hard, I’ll admit, because it was fun to run that DOHC engine up toward the redline.
The front bucket seats were firm and comfortable, and adjustable to fit any size or shape. The extended cab is reachable through two rear doors, both of which have outside handles. On the Ford, Dodge or GM pickups, you have to open the front door to reach the hidden handles for the rear-opening rear doors.
The spaciousness of the extended cab is a nice feature, especially if you’ve driven normal cabs and tried to find places for your assorted stuff that you want inside. The area behind the front seats is roomy, but the bench seat across the rear has a backrest that sits bolt upright. It’s OK for short hops, or small kids, but adults going a distance would find it pretty uncomfortable after a few miles.
The tilt-out rear windows are a nice touch, though, and having an uncomfortable rear seat in an extended cab still makes a lot more sense than not having an extended cab.
The full-sized pickup market is highly competitive and the lines have been clearly defined along brand-loyalty focus. The new Tundra won’t simply show up and capture those loyalists, but it is certain that Ford, Chevy and Dodge are keenly aware that there is a new, high-tech player in their game.
TT Coupe leads Audi’s performance jolt for 2000
[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1 (hopefully) / The Audi TT quattro coupe is like a piece of modern art — even against the natural art of a September sunset on Park Point.
#2 (possibly grouping front, rear and inside shots)/ Blunt from the front and the rear, and followed through inside, the TT blends futuristic and retro.
#3/ While Audi built the TT Coupe to attract buyers, it also added impressive high-performance touches to its A4, A6 and A8 sedans, which were introduced at California’s Laguna Seca race track.
[[[GOOD PULLOUT LINE: Some people love it, some think it looks weird. Either way, once your eyes focus on it, you simply cannotstop looking at the TT Coupe. ]]]
Pick an angle, any angle, and examine the new Audi TT sports car.
There it sits, a blunt-looking little thing. High-rising curve to the aerodynamically smooth front end, intriguing angles of lines and curves that include the windshield and the teardrop-shaped roofline, and then an abrupt, blunt, rear end, again following an almost circular series of curves.
The car draws stop-in-your-tracks attention wherever you go. A young woman manning the cash register at a Twin Cities suburban gas station simply abandoned the register to stand at the window and stare, asking me about every detail of the car before processing my credit card.
Out on Brighton Beach, just east of Lester River at the east end of Duluth, I parked by the lake and got out to look at the TT Coupe. A young man and woman came driving by in a well-worn sedan, and I heard the guy let out a whoop, even though his windows were shut. He stopped, right in the middle of the narrow road, and the two of them got out of their car for a closer look, forgetting for a moment that they were blocking traffic.
The best reaction was on a midweek evening, driving across the Aerial Bridge and on down Park Point. A fellow and woman were just about to climb into their car when we went by, and they both stopped, so stunned that, literally, their eyes bulged and their jaws dropped.
Some people love it, some think it looks weird. Either way, once your eyes focus on it, you simply cannot stop looking at the TT Coupe. There is nothing current about the car; rather it is a compelling blend of futuristic and retro. It’s like a piece of modern art, an intriguing sculpture that you keep looking at in hopes of deciphering some mystical, subtle meaning.
Audi, the German builder of substantial cars at comparatively reasonable prices, has been making cars that mostly go after Mercedes and BMW, and stand up very well in such exclusive company, which means they also contend well with any sedans, anywhere. It so happens that Audi outsells its two more prestigious German rivals in the Minnesota region, which is the bold-faced explanation of the value of front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive in Up North winter conditions. Mercedes and BMW makes exceptional front-engine/rear-drive sedans and sporty cars, while all Audis are front-wheel drive or benefit from the fabulous all-wheel-drive quattro system.
So for 2000, Audi brought to life its sports-car concept vehicle from two years ago. Audi wanted to make a statement with the TT, and, after a week-long test drive to reinforce brief introductory drives, that statement ends with an exclamation point!
The statement Audi wanted was that the company builds thoroughly enjoyable and competent over-achievers among its A4, A6 and A8 sedans, and the Avant station-wagon versions of the A4 intermediate and A6 midsize vehicles, and everyone who has driven them realizes it. But it was time for the company to slap the world upside the head and prove that it not only can jump into the current trend of high-performance sports cars, but it can do it with unprecedented flair.
FULL-LINE PERFORMERS
I had a chance to drive the first TT at the car’s introduction in Austin, Texas, last spring. It was only offered in front-wheel-drive form then, but that was enough to indicate Audi had, indeed, built a winner. More recently, I had the chance to drive almost everything in Audi’s line for 2000 at the company’s full-line introduction near Monterey, Calif., around the hilly terrain by Laguna Seca race course.
There were a lot of vehicles there that show Audi intends to upgrade the capabilities of all its cars, stretching beyond high-tech to offer compelling high-performance.
At that time, I got the chance to sample the TT Coupe with quattro, Audi’s legendary all-wheel-drive system. The concept is to give the outside wheels on a curve more power, to equalize their need to turn farther. It makes the car feel like it’s on rails, and foul-weather traction simply becomes a byproduct of the system’s effectiveness.
For the past week, I was able to get my hands on a factory test-fleet 2000 model TT Coupe with quattro, and all my first impressions were reinforced dramatically. As evidence of quattro’s efficient each-wheel-pulls-its-share philosophy, the heavier quattro version has virtually identical acceleration times, within a tenth of a second, and fuel economy remains the same. I got 22 strictly in town, and 26 miles per gallon on combined city-freeway use.
But the rest of the Audi line can’t be overlooked for 2000, and obviously Audi’s plan is for the TT to draw folks to the rest of the sedans.
The A4, the car that turned Audi’s fortunes around in the last five years, and made its used car prices go from the worst to the best in U.S. resale, is being renovated for 2000, and that was one car that wasn’t available at the full-line drive. It will remain the volume leader, with prices starting at $24,000.
However, an S4 was available. That is the A4 after being tweaked for sports performance with the same totality as BMW gives its M3, or Mercedes its C43. It has 17-inch concept wheels, revised suspension points and firmness, a faster steering ratio, larger brakes, a standard 6-speed manual shifter or the auto-manual Tiptronic, plus an amazing engine. While the A4 has a 1.8-liter 4-cylinder or a 2.8-liter V6, the S4 has a 2.7-liter V6, with dual overhead camshafts, 5 valves per cylinder, and twin turbochargers. It delivers 250 horsepower and 258 foot-pounds of torque, peaking at 1,800 RPMs and remaining constant to 4,000 RPMs. With quattro standard on the S4, you actually can drive in sixth gear at 1,000 RPMs — idle speed — and when you step on the gas it simply pulls itself up to speed.
On a controlled, twisty roadway at Laguna Seca, I red-lined the S4 in fourth gear, and was startled to note that was 120 miles per hour. With two gears to go. The S4 also has a specific interior with unique seats and instrumentation. For all you get, the $37,900 sticker is a bargain for the discriminating — and wealthy — buyer.
The larger A6, which was redesigned for 1999, is a streamlined, stylish midsized car, but its competent 2.8-liter V6, even with 5-valves per cylinder, can’t compete with BMW’s 540 with its 4.4-liter V8. So for 2000, Audi puts the 4.2-liter V8 from the A8 flagship under the A6 hood. At 250-horsepower, the 40-valve V8 is enough of a boost from the 2.8’s 200 horsepower to challenge the 540 BMW very effectively. But Audi also makes available the 2.7-liter turbo V6 from the S4 — offering 300 horsepower that vaults the A6 to new performance levels. The A6 prices are lower than for 1999, ranging from the 2.8 version at $33,950 to the 4.2 V8 at $48,900, but the bargain of the batch might be the 2.7-biturbo at $38,550.
The A8, the all-aluminum, luxury flagship, has had its space-frame body reinforced to be more rigid, and adds all-aluminum suspension parts. The A8 is the only premium sedan to have passed the U.S. government crash tests with 5-star ratings — the highest possible. On top of that, the 4.2-liter V8, but tunes the 5-valve version to 310 horsepower and makes a 5-speed manual available. Built like a jet aircraft and with the 40-valve V8 and quattro standard, the A8 also is lower priced than last year, at $62,000.
AH, BUT THE TT…
Meanwhile, back at the TT Coupe. Audi talks about the “purity and simplicity in design” right from the time it was a concept car-show vehicle. The design touches are neat, and they continue to recur throughout, interior as well. Brushed stainless steel accents the gauge and vent bezels, the console trim, the floor shifter, and the pedals.
The TT comes with Audi’s 1.8-liter 4-cylinder with its 5-valve heads and low-pressure turbo, that runs its 180 horsepower right off the plateau of maximum torque. With the quattro representing the first upgrade since the TT’s introduction, the next will be an increased-power version with 225 horses and 207 foot-pounds of torque. And a roadster version is coming soon.
Not to be overlooked is that Audi made full use of the shorter wheelbase of the TT and the convenient size of the 1.8 engine, and hooked it up to an electronic quattro system, rather than the Torsen quattro of the sedans. The difference is that the electronic system can allow the TT to run almost as a front-wheel-drive vehicle until the computer detects the tendency for one of those front wheels to spin, then it can transfer power to the rear axle, up to 100 percent of the power, in fact.
Getting into the TT requires some care, if you’re 6-feet tall or more. Once inside, there’s plenty of room. The rear seat is, basically, just a token, but the storage area under the rear hatch is surprisingly good, and the rear seatbacks fold down to expand it to the same capacity as the A4 sedan. Still, you need to fold your head down when getting in to avoid a whack on the roof. Inside, the visibility seems lessened by the low, almost retro roofline, although it becomes as convenient as a baseball cap bill when you’re driving into the sun.
At launch, you ride the clutch just a bit to get away, then it zips on off to the 6,500 redline. The 0-60 times are about 7.2 seconds, but the car’s handling, fit and overall aura make such things as acceleration times seem boringly passe. You fit into the sculptured buckets so well, and the pedals and switches are right where they should be. The door grips are angled, and the power window switches are at fingertip reach from there. A small panel ahead of the floor shift slides forward to reveal the switch that opens the trunk and pops the race-car styled gas cap on the right flank.
Headlights are xenon-discharge gas, with bluish brightness and a sharp cutoff, and the tiny lights, and their foglight and high-beam compatriots, shine through a smoked lens for an extremely stylish and quite sinister-looking effect.
The fun-to-drive quotient is off the scale, making it a worthy challenger for the BMW Z3, the Mercedes SLK, the Porsche Boxster, the new-and-coming Honda S2000, and even the Corvette. Unlike all of those dazzling competitors, the TT will flat enjoy the slipperiest conditions Up North winters can offer. And the price makes it more appealing: a base of $30,500, with the quattroa $1,750 option. That makes a car like the tester a $32,250 steal.
The biggest problem a TT buyer might have is that as fun as the car is to drive, you might not be able to pass up the urge to park it every once in a while, just to climb out and walk around it, slowly, examining every contour and blend of retro and future.
‘Enormo’ Excursion goes past Espedition, Navigator
[[[[[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1— The new Ford Excursion drives and handles better than might be expected from the world’s largest SUV.
#2— Excursion cargo room is huge even with nine occupants in three rows of seats.
#3— (Perhaps pics of Expedition and Navigator can be put together with one set of lines) Expedition and stylish Navigator have been very successful as large SUVs, but still left room for the Excursion.
The first thing you notice, once behind the wheel of the new Ford Excursion, is how small everything else on the road looks to you. Full-sized cars and pickups look like compacts, and compacts look like minicars.
The second thing you notice is how smoothly the Excursion accelerates with its huge V10 engine, how it turns corners without the anticipated wallow, and how it steers and maneuvers with surprisingly good agility. For a huge vehicle, that is. Everything you can say or notice about the Excursion should be followed by that appendage — “for a huge vehicle.”
I recently had the opportunity to test-drive a Lincoln Navigator, and then a Ford Expedition, which is the vehicle that spun off the Navigator, but after briefly test-driving an Excursion at its introduction, I had to wait to get one for the normal week’s evaluation. I had to wait because there were none yet available, in showrooms or test fleets. The one I finally got was delayed so it could be put on display at the Minnesota State Fair.
The same dark red Excursion XLT Limited that was subjected to thousands of folks looking, crawling into and onto and over, with all the attendant door-slamming and seat-folding during the fair, then was brought to me.
Having previously evaluated and declared the Expedition and Navigator to be impressive but very large, it was quite an experience to climb up on the running board for a convenient hop-step up and into the truly enormous Excursion.
Quite interesting, however, was the fact that from the outside, the Excursion doesn’t look as enormous as it really is. From an appearance standpoint, the straighter lines and less-contoured shape of the Excursion makes it look more proportioned overall, and conceals the fact that it’s actually, at 226.7 inches long, a full 22 inches longer than the large Expedition. Actually, it’s 22.1 inches longer than the Expedition and 21.9 inches longer than the Navigator, which has 0.2-inches of overhang longer than the Expedition.
Of more importance to Ford, the Excursion also is 7 inches longer than GM’s Suburban.
But driving the Excursion doesn’t feel like driving something that enormous, which is to Ford’s credit. It’s only when you pull up alongside an Expedition, Navigator or Explorer that you suddenly realize the size of the Excursion.
The driver sits up high, in a bucket seat with leather facing and multi-adjustable power on the Limited, and optional bun-warmer heaters. A large console is between the front buckets, and the second row of seats is a large and comfortable bench, with yet a third-row bench behind that. If you choose the front bench, it means a basic family of nine, or three families of three, can ride in style with all kinds of headroom and legroom.
Not only that, you can fill 48 cubic feet of cargo space behind the third seat. And filled to the gills, you also can tow from 6,up to 10,000 pounds.
All of that, naturally, could drag the standard 5.4-liter V8 down a bit. The test vehicle had the optional 6.8-liter V10 engine, and it’s difficult to imagine that engine wheezing from the strain of pulling anything. Still, there is also an optional turbocharged diesel V8 engine, of 7.3-liter displacement. In case you want to pull a house trailer, I presume.
Base price for the Excursion XLT is $36,580; for the XLT 4×4 $39,300; for the Limited 4×2 (as tested) $39,415; and for the loaded Limited 4×4 $41,915. It is easy to see that adding options can readily raise that sticker to the mid-$40,000 range. Those prices are aimed at being under the comparable Suburban at lower levels, about the same at mid-level, even if slightly higher at the top end, because Ford maintains the larger Excursion offers more.
EXCURSION CONCEPT
As U.S. consumers line up to spend incredible amounts of money on vehicles that are bigger than they ever might have comprehended for everyday use, the limit has to be somewhere. Maybe the Ford Excursion for 2000 is that limit.
In the extremely-profitable large sport-utility vehicle top end. General Motors always has had the Suburban, and it spun off two shortened versions, the Tahoe for Chevrolet and the rebadged Yukon for the GMC outlets.
Ford, dominant in the “normal” market with the Explorer, decided three years ago to go after the larger SUV segment with the Ford Expedition and, two years ago, with the rebadged and refaced Navigator for Lincoln. Those vehicles are longer than the Explorer and much taller than the Tahoe, Yukon and bigger brother Suburban, which meant large items could be hauled.
Still, however, that Suburban — sold both in Chevrolet and GMC versions — lurked out there, raking in enormous profits because of its greater length and enormous hauling capability. When Ford introduced the Excursion, a couple of months ago in Montana, marketing executives explained that what could be called the Enormo SUV segment had doubled in the last eight years, and accounted for 150,000 sales last year alone. The only vehicle in that category was the Suburban.
So Ford decided it could no longer afford to stand by with its quite-large Expedition and Navigator and let GM profit from 100 percent of thatnormo SUV market.
When Ford came out with its new F150 full-sized pickup, it was a logical step to use that platform for the new Expedition/Navigator. For 1999, Ford introduced a new larger pickup, the F250/350. Like the F150, the larger F250/350 had a large advantage in being powered by new and modern engines, the 4.6 or 5.4 liter V8 engines, with overhead camshaft design for smoother low-end operation and far greater high-end running. Beyond that, the threat that government standards will ultimately force truck-makers to tighten emissions and improve fuel economy make overhead-cams and the possibilities they offer for high-tech progression, such as multiple valves and variable valve-timing, made such a move not only logical but potentially cost-effective.
So the new truck made a logical platform for Ford to jump into the giant end of the SUV biz. The Excursion is it, with the suspension modified for passenger comfort rather than for the truck’s work purposes.
EXPEDITION/NAVIGATOR
I’ve been impressed whenever I’ve driven the Expedition, with its responsive engines and large capacity. That capacity, naturally, is a couple feet shorter than the Excursion, and it truly resembles the difference of driving the F150 or the heavy-duty F250.
In the Expedition and Navigator, you also can seat nine, although the rearmost seat offers less room, naturally, than the Excursion, and much less cargo capacity behind that third seat.
The Expedition is powered by the 4.6-liter V8 with 240 horsepower at 4,750 RPMs and 293 foot-pounds of torque at 3,500, or the 5.4 derivative with 260 horses at 4,500 RPMs and 345 foot-pounds of torque at 2,300 revs.
The Navigator, on the other hand, has a couple of significant differences from the Expedition, and a key is under the hood. It has one engine, which is the 5.4-liter V8, with dual-overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, compared to the single overhead cam of the Expedition’s engines. In DOHC form, the Navigator’s 5.4 has 300 horsepower at 5,000 RPMs, with a whopping 335 foot-pounds of torque at 2,750 RPMs.
While the Expedition bears a sibling resemblence to the F150 pickup from the front, the Navigator underwent extensive change from the styling department. It has a striking chrome grille that I think looks very good, particularly with dark colors. It is stunning in black, or in the dark charcoal-blue of the test vehicle.
The styling differences also create an interesting difference in cargo space. With the third seat removed and the second seat folded, the Expedition has 118.3 cubic feet and the Navigator slightly smaller at 116.4; with the third seat removed and the second row in place, the Expedition has 62.5 cubic feet of space and the Navigator slightly larger 64.7.
The Expedition and Navigator have towing capacities ranging from6,500 to 7,700 pounds, which is, of course, less than the Excursion, with its larger platform and engines.
EXCURSION SAFETY
People who buy large SUVs, particularly those who live and drive Up North, have a realistic need for such large vehicles, knowing they are compromising fuel economy and maneuverability– and cost-effectiveness — for the size and heft they need. But in the vast majority of cases, these vehicles aren’t taken off the road, and are bought because of a perceived safety of being housed inside a fortress.
There is some merit in that, but it is often over-stated. True, if a crash is inevitable, being wrapped in the 6,734-pound Excursion (7,190 in 4×4 form), is an asset. The greater stopping distances required and the lessened agility compared to lighter and smaller vehicles makes it less likely to avoid accidents, however. And the current criticism that large SUVs tend to ride over car bumpers and pretty much assure wiping out those cars it shares the roadways with, is valid.
But Ford has taken some great strides in enhancing the safety of the Excursion and of anything that the Excursion might hit. Something called a blocker beam is installed to make certain that if an Excursion and a car collide, the Excursion bumper may override the car’s bumper, but the blocker beam will match up with the car bumper, which at least guarantees the activation of the car’s safety system. The trailer hitch is designed to offer the same feature at the rear of the Excursion.
When it comes to fuel economy, the 44-gallon fuel tank can fool you into thinking you’re doing OK. I recall noting at one point the test Excursion’s computer showed that I had gone 335 miles, but that I also had 260 miles to go until empty. When I stopped for gas, however, I was concerned that my credit card might dissolve at the price. It computed to 12.6 miles per gallon on freeway and city combined driving, and it dipped to 12.0 when it was predominately in and around town.
Still, that is slightly better, or at least no worse, than what I’ve gotten on Suburban tests. And it proves that Ford is definitely taking on Suburban’s Enormo SUV segment on all fronts.
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