Low-priced Toyota Echo meets high-tech standards
[CUTLINES:
#1— The Toyota Echo is a model-year 2000 attempt to recapture the virtues of an inexpensive economy car with contemporary features and futuristic tecnology.
#2— Short in overall length, the Echo is 4 inches taller than a Metro and demonstrates great efficiency of interior and trunk room.
#3— The Echo interior is as efficient as its operation, with the center-mounted instrument cluster the biggest diversion. ]]]
So, you’re weary of all the hefty truck-like SUVs out there jamming up the roadways and guzzling all the gas. And you’ve had it with all the $30,000-plus sedans with their phony woodgrain inserts and plush creature comforts. What ever happened to those good-ol’ virtues, like economy, simple transportation, roominess, utility and inexpensive purchase price — can’t they be resurrected in concert with the current surge toward high-tech automotives?
OK, all you folks who line up as critics, the 2000 model year will be YOUR year, with several cars designed to plug directly into all of those factors. One of them — and Toyota hopes it will be the main one — is the new Toyota Echo. Think of it as an “echo” of the time when economy and usefulness were the maximum selling points of cars.
If looks are everything, the Echo has state-of-the-art styling touches, but it also is a little, well…different. A cynic might say weird. But in typical Toyota fashion, the Echo compromises a lot of things so that form will follow function.
The Echo is aimed primarily at younger buyers who are not among the zillions who seem to be unable to find enough mammoth SUVs and pickup trucks to satisfy their cravings for big and burly. It will cost only $11,095 for starters, and “starters” is a key word here. Folks just out of college and earning their first paychecks have been choosing between a few scattered inexpensive new cars or expensive cars that have come down near $10,000 as used cars. The Echo can make a strong case for being a top alternative to such new consumers.
I think, after a week-long test drive, that Toyota also may have a winner for those folks who have been buying bigger sedans and now have branched off to add an SUV or minivan or pickup to the family stable. Owning a gas-hungry SUV or pickup makes a lot more sense if it is reserved for heavy duty operation, and it can be reserved for such work if a family also has a second vehicle that is compact, eminently useful and extremely economical.
Let’s hear it for an Echo.
LEAN, BUT FUNKY
Toyota has taken over the top selling spot in the U.S. for cars. We’re not talking trucks, which currently dominate the market. But in just cars, the Toyota Camry is the No. 1 seller in the U.S. Toyota also is riding high in the SUV world, producing the compact RAV4, the steadfast 4Runner, and the large Land Cruiser, plus offering alternative upgraded SUVs under the Lexus names, with the RX300 and the LX470. Plus, Toyota has long made an impressive compact pickup truck and now has added the full-size Tundra and a very good minivan in the Sienna.
But Toyota also never has lost sight of the inexpensive end of the scale, where the Tercel once was among the dominant subcompacts and the Corolla still remains as a stalwart.
Covering all niches of the marketplace is tough to do, but Toyota is aiming for it, by bringing back the sporty Celica in all-new styling for 2000 and teasing us with the Prius as an alternative-energy entry about to hit the market.
But the Echo is already here, even if it has been lost a little by the flash and splash of the more profitable high-end models.
The first thing you notice about it is that it looks fairly big. And, from some angles, it is. It stands a couple of inches taller than some luxury sedans, in fact, with a height of 59.4 inches. But it also is stubby in overall length, where its 163.2 inches makes it shorter than a subcompact such as the Suzuki-built Chevrolet (formerly Geo) Metro, the car generally considered the smallest.
That somewhat odd configuration has meaning. Toyota has cheated on the frontal length, stretching that steeply sloped nose over the side-mounted engine, and chopping off the rear end abruptly. However, it has not compromised on usable room. The tallness gives the interior amazingly spacious headroom, and legroom also is surprising, even in the rear with the front seats in normal location for a 6-foot driver.
Maybe more surprising is that from the outside, it appears there can’t be much of any trunkroom, but the Echo has a large trunk, so large you want to walk back around the outside of the car wondering where that space could come from. Typically, the rear seats fold down to expand that storage area even more.
Inside, the seats on the test vehicle were covered with a sort-of 60s-ish geometric pattern of pastelness. The weirdest thing was that the instrument cluster was located in the upper middle of the dashboard, right there between the driver and front passenger seats. It was angled toward the driver, and it included only a speedometer, temperature and fuel gauges and a pattern of what we used to call “idiot lights.” No tachometer.
Some have said locating the intruments in the center means they aren’t a distraction to the driver. I’ve never found instruments to be a distraction; you need to be able to read them at a glance, and the more in line with your vision the better. It is dark when you look straight ahead driving the Echo at night, but it also requires a glance farther from the roadway to check the instruments.
More logically, the center placement of the angled instrument pod fits in with manufacturing expense. The Echo obviously is Toyota’s latest attempt at a true world car, and for Japan, Great Britain and other places where they drive on the other side of the road, right-hand steering vehicles will require only swinging the pod to a different angle.
‘ENGINE-EERING’
Making a small car, even an all-new small car, would be one thing, but tying it in with the latest, cutting-edge technology is what allows the Echo to shout from the mountaintops — as well as to get there efficiently.
That little side-mounted engine is a 4-cylinder, with dual overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder, the typical things we have come to expect from Toyota, which is more than a decade beyond the archaic concept of pushrod-powered valvetrains. The Echo engine is only 1.5 liters in displacement (91 cubic inches), but it also has variable valve timing, something that Honda has been a leader in developing, but Toyota, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Nissan — the world’s car-building elite — have also been implementing.
The variable valve-timing allows a manufacturer to extract maximum power and also more complete burning of air-fuel mix for maximum fuel economy. So the Echo is adequately quick with 108 horsepower and 105 foot-pounds of torque, and also meets low-emission vehicle status for how cleanly it burns. The real-world translation for that is for owners to realize excellent fuel economy.
The 5-speed manual transmission version of the Echo will deliver 41 miles per gallon in strict highway driving, and 34 in the city. The test car I drove had a 4-speed automatic transmission, which obviously detracts a little from the performance end of such a small powerplant, but still delivered 34.2 miles per gallon in combined city-freeway driving, with the driver’s foot pushing it pretty hard.
Even with the automatic, acceleration is adequate, and the little beast will smoothly move right on up over 100 miles per hour, if there was any place to do that sort of thing. The automatic also has the latest computer-logic control, which means it will hold its shift points when you need more power for climbing hills, rather than upshifting and downshifting in the usual mini-car samba.
Front disc brakes are complemented by rear drums, which is not the ideal set-up, but it again is inexpensive from a manufacturing standpoint. The tires are 175/65 by 14-inch, which seems small and skinny, in perspective with the tall body of the car, but which makes sense from the standpoints of expense and fuel-economy (less wind resistance). However, I would enjoy driving an Echo with bigger wheels and low-profile tires, just for the obvious enhancements that would give handling and stability.
The test car’s 4-speed automatic was standard equipment, as are driver and passenger airbags, pretensioners with force limiters on the 3-point harnesses, side impact door beams, halogen headlights, under seat storage tray and various cubicles and stowage bins, and tilt steering wheel. At $11,095, it’s a cheap but worthy commuter.
The test car also had some impressive options added, such as a heavy duty battery, rear heater and rear window defogger, a sports body kit with side and fender molding panels, power steering and a package that includes air-conditioning and a 6-speaker audio upgrade with both a cassette and CD player. All that pushed the price tage up to $14,374, which is still inexpensive. And the upgraded audio system would make for the perfect diversion if you were ever caught in a heavy traffic jam with nothing else to think about but your 34 miles per gallon, those weird-pattern seats, and where did the instruments go?
New Sable has simpler, cleaner lines for 2000
It seems as though it gets increasingly difficult to design a sedan that is distinctive in any way from the rest of the mainstream. At Ford Motor Company, where designers have had no difficulty in coming up with distinctively different styling, the new Taurus and Sable for 2000 are somewhat improved by being LESS distinctive and different.
Tauruses are a bit scarce these days, and may not be around for another month or so, but I was able to latch on to a new Sable, which is identical under the skin, and very similar on the outside as well. Well-equipped with options, we can estimate the sticker price to be about $23,000, which should put the car right in the midst of the segment.
I probably had heard the word “ovoid” a time or two before 1995, which was the year that Ford Motor Company brought out the second generation Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. In its first generation, Ford had introduced a controversial new design, with a rounded aerodynamic shape that only Audi had tried with its full-sized sedan. That first Taurus/Sable was a surprising success, and it zoomed to the top of the sales charts.
For several years running, the Taurus was the top-selling single car in the U.S., although a large percentage of them were sold through program deals to fleets. Among the top challengers to Taurus sales were the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, both of which continued to make technical advances and closed the gap. Along came the new, second-generation Taurus/Sable with those egg-shaped (ovoid) designs repeated everywhere — overall passenger compartment, grille, windshield, rear window, instrument cluster, console, headlights, taillights, and various other areas. It was the first time I can ever recall being genuinely tired of one design shape because of its exaggerated use in a single car.
It so happened that when Ford changed the design of the Taurus and Sable, Toyota and Honda were right on its tail in sales, but neither of them were involved in the lower-profit fleet programs. In the 1997 model year, however, Toyota decided to make a fleet program push, and the Camry became the top U.S. car, then repeated the title claim last year.
A lot of critics, and a lot of people at Ford, decided too-much-ovoid caused the demise of the technically sound Taurus and Sable sedans, perhaps overlooking the continually improved competition from Camry and Accord. So, after only three model years, the Taurus/Sable sedans have gotten a complete new changeover to generation three for the 2000 model year.
Whether the new cars can regain the company’s instensely sought hold on being the largest-selling car in the U.S. remains to be determined, and it may take most of the year 2000 before we get a clue. But the cars are all new, while top contenders Toyota Camry and Honda Accord are a year or two past their most recent changes, which could be an advantage for the Taurus/Sable duo.
As is often the case, the Mercury Sable gets a few tiny styling touches to differentiate it from the Ford Taurus, and a lot of buyers might find they prefer the Sable’s look.
The test car I drove was painted an attractive champagne-gold. The grille veers away from the everything-oval style of its predecessor by having diagonal slants outlining either side, and that diagonal parallels the inside edge of the large headlight lens. The rounded underside of the grille seems to sink into the upper edge of the bumper, copying a bit from the new Lincoln LS sedan’s front styling.
The large, horizontal air intake panel under the front bumper is flanked with foglights to complete a stylish and contemporary look.
From the side, the Sable looks a lot like its predecessor, which makes sense, because the doors are the same shape and design. The roofline is a bit higher and stretches a bit farther back than the car it replaces, increasing the front headroom by about an inch, and rear headroom by two inches. That’s important in a competitive area where several companies seem to have found the secret to gouging more space out of the same size and dimensions.
The rear of the roofline tapers down, almost BMW-ish, while the rear window has squared-off sides to replace the old oval look. The taillights simply wrap around to the trunk, looking very simple, but in this case simpler means classier compared to the curvy and rounded off look of the previous car.
WHERE YOU LIVE
The view from the driver’s seat is vastly better, if only because you don’t see that same old recurring shape. The instrument panel is simple but efficient, and the leather-covered steering wheel has four spokes, with cruise control switches on either side– on-off switches on the left, set-coast-resume within reach of your right thumb.
There is a lot of fake woodgrain trim on the dash and console, but the audio and air controls deserve special recognition.
After years of trying to make the tiniest buttons in creation, the new Sable has the radio-tape player mounted on top, with the air-heat controls underneath. I think that makes sense, simply because you tend to change the sound system around a lot, but you don’t alter the heat-air switches very often.
While the horizontal push-button set-up is familiar on the right side of the radio, the whole audio system has a large, round button on the left, simply to turn the thing on and off. And the six station preset buttons are appreciably larger than almost any other cars nowadays, and much larger than the previous Sable or Taurus, which required either teeny fingertips or multiple hits when you wanted just one.
The heat-air buttons are similarly large, but the previous Taurus had the simple, and preferable, round switches with the raised center rib, where you could reach, grab and turn up or down for more heat, without taking your eyes off the road.
Along with the in-dash radio and cassette player, there was a vertically stashed CD changer in the console on the test car. Push in on the front edge of the console, and a spring-loaded pair of cupholders will unfold for use.
One of the best features of the Sable and Taurus in its previous form has been exceptional crashworthiness. That occupant protection system has been carried over, and two-stage airbags — designed to inflate with less force for smaller passengers — should even improve on that status.
One of the neatest new features from Ford Motor Company is adjustable gas and brake pedals. You can electrically slide them toward your feet or away from them, which means shorter or taller folks can find the optimum distance for reach from the steering wheel, and then adjust the pedals up to 3 inches to reach your feet.
POWER REMAINS
Unchanged in the new Sable is the availablility of what sounds like an automotive joke. You can choose the base 3.0-liter V6, or the optional 3.0-liter V6. There is, of course, a world of difference. The basic pushrod V6 has had its horsepower increased by 10 to 155, and torque increased by 15 to 185 foot-pounds. The optional V6 is the Duratec that Ford builds in its Cleveland plant and is good enough to be sent to Europe for high-speed autobahn driving in cars such as the Mondeo.
In the Taurus, the 3.0 Duratec V6 turns out 200 horsepower and 200 foot-pounds of torque via its dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder.
Curiously, Ford has softened the suspension settings to make the new Sable more compliant and less performance-oriented. To compensate, the new Sable SE had larger, 16-inch alloy wheels, and Ford apparently has put larger stabilizer bars on the front and rear. I found it still to be stable and good-handling, without the tar-strip-slapping of the older, firmer suspension.
The 4-speed automatic transmission, with the shift lever on the console, was smooth and precise, too. And the headlights were bright and well-aimed, with the foglights doing a good job of lighting up the low, wide area along the shoulders
Honda’s S2000 brings 9,000 RPMs to the real world
[[[[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1— The S2000 is either the Formula 1 car of sports cars, or the Honda of street-racers — which is to say, uncompromising high-tech excellence.
#2— The late-afternoon sun catches reflections of the S2000’s urge for going, which is barely disguised, even when parked.
#3— The electronic tachometer arches over the digital speedometer and runs eagerly all the way to an astounding 9,000 RPM redline as the focal point of a functional interior, including a push-button starter switch.
#4— Producing 240 horsepower out of 2.0 liters gives the S2000 engine the highest power output per liter of any production engine ever built in the world.
If you’re late to the party in the automotive world, you’d better have something special to offer, or else you needn’t bother showing up. Nobody knows that axiom better than Honda.
So when Honda, which is usually on the leading edge of technological advancements, decided to come out with a legitimate sports car with a real-world price tag, it had some formidible competition awaiting — the BMW Z3, the Porsche Boxster, the Mercedes SLK, even the newest Corvette, and the Audi TT. But Honda, which has flexed its technical wizardry at Formula 1 and CART race tracks all over the world, had measured its opposition, and has it covered.
The S2000 is one of the most incredible vehicles ever built. At an estimated price of just over $30,000, the S2000 spots the Z3 that menacing look; it spots the Boxster that smooth, overall refinement; it spots the Mercedes SLK all that hideaway-hardtop gimmickry; it spots the Corvette the all-out blasting power of 5.7 liters; and it spots Audi the TT’s artful retro look and the obvious advantage of all-wheel drive. But anyone, driving any of those cars, will stop in their tracks at the sight of a Honda S2000.
You could make the case that the S2000 is the clearcut choice, for several reasons. Among them is the price — just a tick over $30,000; the stunning looks; the economy (I got 24.2 miles per gallon running the revs up, up and away); and the sheer driving excitement that is so spectacular it could be included in the warranty. Scarcity is another consideration. Honda is only sending 5,000 of these things to showrooms, and dealers are very likely going to tack on substantial premiums before parting with one.
After seeing a prototype of the car on a pedestal at the Detroit International Auto Show last January, I’ve read much about it, and I’ve seen about a hundred photos. None of those photos did the car justice. In most photos, the front end looks blunt, instead of sleek. In real life, it is sleeker than the aforementioned competition, and the view from the front corner shows a remarkably chiseled shape, tapering back severely from the headlight lenses that flank the large grille opening under the bumper-nose. The angle flares dramatically over the front wheelwells before blending in artfully with the side contours. From the rear, the S2000 is more efficient than dramatic, but those large silver tailpipes show a true dual exhaust.
When I finally got my mitts on one, it was already December, which means we were lucky that there wasn’t snow on the ground, and ice. Because I would have driven it anyway, and its front-engine/rear-drive layout would undoubtedly have gained me a few sideways moments. The timing also meant it was foolhardy to flip the releases, hit the switch, and fold down the top — except for photographic reasons.
But the mind-blowing appeal of the S2000 came through no matter how chilly it was outside, and when I gave a friend a ride near the DECC, a quick burst on the throttle provided all sorts of simultaneous thrills, because the tires were cold and the power immediately sent the beast a bit sideways, but the amazing handling meant it was simple to catch and straighten out where a lesser car could have wound up embarrassingly crossed up.
THE ENGINE
Any true sports-car driver demands certain features from his choice of vehicles. It might have lots of power but it must have quickness and agility, which means great handling is first and foremost. It should be a 2-seater, and its seats should engulf you in a cockpit-like atmosphere.
The S2000 does all those things, but it also has an engine that can only be described as futuristic. It is a 2.0-liter 4-cylinder, for starters. It adds all of Honda’s race-technology tricks, such as dual-overhead camshafts, and four valves per cylinder that are delayed or advanced with the latest in variable valve timing, which Honda designates as VTEC, for variable timing and electronic control.
What makes this engine special is that it will rev high, which is not unusual for Honda’s best street-performance engines, in the NSX, the Prelude, or the Civic Si. But this one is off the scale. It revs up to a redline of 9,000. Think about that for a second. Tachometer redlines are not serious obstacles for cars with automatic transmissions, which shift well before those electronically-guarded limits. A redline of 6,000 is high, 6,500 is very high, and 7,000 is all but unheard of, even for sports cars.
If you revved a NASCAR Winston Cup V8 to 8,500, you would have a lot of shrapnel on your hands. True, a CART racer or a Formula 1 car might rev to 13,500, but those are strictly race-built jewels designed to run at maximums well beyond street concepts. But the S2000 revs, eagerly and almost anxiously with smoothness, right to redline. In the U.S., we are enthralled with the low rumble of pushrod V8s, or Harley Davidsons. But that low rumble is the sound of low-tech. The sound of high-tech is high, higher and highest, getting shrill at the upper limits.
Drive the car to takeoff in first, shift to second, and run it up to the redline and you will reach 65 miles per hour. That’s with the second of the S2000’s six speeds from an extremely precise manual gearbox. If you weren’t on such a fact-finding (wink-wink) mission, and you were shifting by ear, you would probably be shifting at 4,000 revs. And you’d still be impressed. I ran it up to 9,000 a few times, just for the sheer exhilaration of it.
That little 2.0-liter engine delivers 240 horsepower, which means it has the most power-per-liter of any engine made for a standard production car ever in the history of automotives. That horsepower peak is achieved at 8,300 RPMs — a figure that the competitors can’t even pretend to reach. It has only 153 foot-pounds of torque, peaking at 7,500 RPMs, and while that number has led to some criticism, I find it to be one of those numbers that is meaningless. How it goes is more important than any statistics, and the S2000 accelerates, corners and stops so swiftly you learn to appreciate being harnessed into such a secure bucket.
It’s a 2,780-pound car, and it will dash from 0-60 in a blink that measured 5.8 seconds when Car & Driver magazine tested it on a race course. In that test, the S2000 also had a top speed of 147 miles per hour, a 70-0 braking distance of a sudden 157 feet, and negotiated a high-speed lane change at 66.4 mph, which was a couple of miles per hour swifter than all its competitors.
That’s quicker than all but the BMW Z3 — IF you pick the “M” model of the Z3, which costs $12,000 or so more. The S2000 is priced to sell against the basic Z3, but it performs with, or outperforms, the swiftest of three Z3 varieties.
DRIVING KICKS
Climbing into the cockpit, you notice first that you turn the key on conventionally, but then you must push a large, red button on the left edge of the dash to start the engine. There is precious little room, in tiny cubicles here and there, and in a nice trunk that has a deep well to house more than it looks.
At first, you might think there is no audio system. But push the release on the little door, and you find a quite sophisticated unit, and, in a great move for a ragtop, you can turn it on and close the door, and anyone peeking into the thing might assume there is no audio system. The left side of the dash has several remote buttons, including a neat little toggle that is operated by a tongue that sticks out far enough so you can hit it with a finger up or down for volume without taking your hand completely off the steering wheel.
You have great forward visibility, but you also notice the unique dash, which has a digital speed readout, that is like the pot of gold under a rainbow arching over it, which is the electronic tachometer.
It is quick, and the steering is so quick, the frame so rigid, and the suspension so firm, that you can change lanes with the tiniest flip of your hands. The 6-speed manual shifter is ergonomically perfect. You shift it in tight, short throws that almost feel like therapy for carpal-tunnel syndrome.
The halogen headlights beamed through those sleek lense-covers have a perfectly flat cutoff, with brilliant light below and total darkness above. Driving at night, the suspension’s firmness conspires with those headlights so that every time you hit an irregularity, or even some tar-strips, the reflective freeway roadside signs appear to be strobe-lit.
You can hear the engine singing and you notice you’re cruising at 70 on the freeway at around 4,000 RPMs. At first, you think that’s high, but then you remember that the limit is 9,000! When you rev it past 6,000, you engage the VTEC changeover, which means the valvetrain responds to the electronic calling and the thrust is enhanced all the way up.
No question, the S2000 would be a handful on icy roadways, which makes it no worse than the Z3, the SLK or the Corvette in that category, but a bit behind the Porsche Boxster’s mid-engine design, and a large leap short of the Audi TT’s front-wheel drive or quattro all-wheel drive. It’s not intended to be a winter-beater anyhow.
Besides, when it’s dry, and you can let that engine sing up to regions above 6,000 RPMs, where no rival dares to go, you get the same thrill that otherwise might be reserved only for big-time race car drivers or jet fighter pilots. And there are a lot of us out there, judging by the number of other-car drivers who followed me off streets, highways and freeways to look over and talk over every detail of the S2000.
Cadillac’s Night Vision challenges even Mercedes
[[[[[CUTLINES:
#1 (combined overall shots)of both cars)— The Cadillac DeVille, left, and the Mercedes S-500 combine contemporary luxury with futuristic features that can astound an unsuspecting driver.
#2— The DeVille’s “NightVision” has an infrared camera aimed through the middle of the grille, and a display superimposed on the lower windshield that can show objects ahead long before they become visible in the headlights.
#3— The S-class Mercedes has a sophisticated navigation system in an interior cadorned with real leather and real wood — or, as an $8,500 option, oppulent light-brown leather and natural elm wood trim.
A couple of the cars that came into the 2000 model year with high hopes of challenging for the International Car of the Year award are the Mercedes S-class and the Cadillac DeVille. Both are excellent versions of contemporary luxury sedans, loaded with driver/rider features aimed at proving that people who can afford such cars will pay any price to get them.
In voting for car of the year, affordability is one of the various elements used in evaluation, and the price of the S-500 and the DeVille pretty much assured that neither can win the honor. However, that doesn’t mean that they won’t be enormously successful in the marketplace, or that they haven’t gone far, far into the realm of automotive fantasyland for features.
To begin with, both cars have powerful engines and supple but firm handling that can satisfy — no, overwhelm — their intended customers. The prices, however, are prohibitive, even at Christmastime. The Cadillac DeVille has a base price of $44,700, and an as-tested sticker of $51,735. That may seem like a lot, but only until you see the Mercedes sticker: Base price of the S-430 is $69,700 with an as-tested sticker of $71,915, and the full-boat S-500, with its bigger engine and more oppulent appointments starting at $77,850, and the test car I drove listing at $90,160.
CADILLAC DE VILLE
The redesigned Cadillac DeVille has taken on more of the Seville’s sleekness for 2000, but with a blunt front end treatment. It has a large interior, befitting its near-limousine history, and it has Cadillac’s NorthStar system, with a 4.6-liter V8, and its 32-valve, dual-overhead camshaft design, producing 300 horsepower.
A new steering system, constantly varying road-sensing suspension, StabiliTrak chassis with all-speed traction control and front-wheel drive. It rides on 17-inch wheels. Plush leather seating and zebrano wood trim set off the interior, and the analog instrument cluster is electronically lit, and there are features such as rain-sensing wipers, and 12-way power seats with massaging lumbar and heat provided.
All that stuff makes for a strong and good-handling sedan, and the Bose sound system is nothing short of magnificent. But here’s what truly sets the DeVille DTS apart from any other car on the planet, regardless of price: It’s called Night Vision.
Normally, the DeVille has a big, rectangular grille with egg-crate design. If you get Night Vision, the same grille has a circle in the middle, with a glass lens on it. Behind the grille is an infrared video machine, believe it or not.
When you’re driving at night, and you turn on the headlights, a small, rectangular patch appears on the lower part of the windshield, at the bottom of the driver’s field of view. It’s not really a distraction, although you can find yourself glancing at it repeatedly. If you owned the car, you would get so you sort of watch it with your peripheral vision, detecting any unusual movement.
When you’re driving, even with excellent headlights and auxiliary foglights, you can only see a certain swatch of roadway ahead. Let’s say the lights will shine 100 yards down the road on high beams. If you’re going 70 miles per hour on the freeway, and something happens out there beyond the reach of those lights — let’s say a deer runs across the road, or a car is stalled up ahead — you notice it after it comes within reach of your lights, and after it enters your awareness.
The little panel on the lower windshield, however, displays what at first looks like a snowy, poor-reception television picture, a little like watching an unassigned channel. But infrared cameras pick up heat-emitting things, like people, or animals. So you might notice a car on the shoulder in faint depiction on the Night Vision panel, long before it comes into actual view, which allows you to slow down and be aware that something is out of order ahead. If that car is running, or has been running, the hot engine area will glow much brighter than the rest.
Ah, but if there is a person up there with the car, he or she will shine brightly in ghostly silhouette, helping you see a jogger, or someone changing a tire, or hitchhiking, well before your headlights illuminate them. And if a deer runs across the road — a primary concern of any Up North drivers at any time of year — you are alerted to it with all kinds of time to prepare to slow down or get the adrenaline going to avoid it.
I talked to one man who was driving across Wisconsin on the freeway in the early-morning darkness and noticed a big deer in bright white form, galloping across the little Night Vision panel. He slowed down, and when he got to the area where the deer had been, the deer was long gone. He found it eerie but effective that he never actually saw the deer, and would never have known it existed had he not seen it on Night Vision.
I was impressed that when the freeway curved ahead, I could detect the curvature of the treeline on either side of the road, indicating which way the road would turn up there a half-mile ahead. I also found it helped keep me awake and alert at night, because I kept glancing at the Night Vision panel, just to see if anything was there.
MERCEDES S-CLASS
Mercedes claims 30 new technical features for the S-Class sedans for 2000, and has applied for 340 patents. At such a steep price, it still is a reduction from the previous S-Class, which denotes the biggest sedans in the Mercedes line, above the C-Class and E-Class, and the SUV’s M-Class.
There is little doubt that the level of excellence in every feature makes the S-Class cars worthy of the objective of being the absolute best. The S-500 has a 5-liter V8, while the S-430 has a 4.3-liter V8. Both have multiple valves and ultra-sophisticated engineering and engine-management systems, with 5-speed automatic transmissions that can be shifted manually. The 430 has 275 horsepower with 295 foot-pounds of torque and the 500 has 302 horses and 339 foot-pounds of torque. The 430 goes 0-60 in 6.9 seconds; the 500 does it in 6.1 seconds. And this is a 4,133-pound car.
In exterior design, the S-Class has a 0.27 coefficient of drag, which is pretty much unheard of in a sedan, let alone a large, luxury sedan.
As anticipated, the S-Class cars have safety systems that are off the scale of excellence, with crushable front and rear sections and a rigid cage around the passenger compartment, with dual front airbags, side airbags mounted in the front and rear doors, and with driver and front passenger side window safety curtains. The 14-way power seats also have10 fans in both front bucket seats for ventilation.
Much of the Mercedes safety characteristics are engineered into precise driving control, and the test cars had all sorts of devices to eliminate slipping and skidding, going well beyond the normal antilock 4-wheel disc brakes. One device even anticipates slippery driving and uses a road-sensing helps make the car go where the driver is streering, while compensating for either oversteer or understeer.
A satellite-based a global positioning system, which operates on discs for different regions, and an emergency “SOS” button above the rear-view mirror that provides instant help from a Mercedes source, or from police or emergency road-side service. Truly unique is the cruise-control system. Instead of just setting your speed, it has a radar sensor to detect the speed of the car ahead of you, and it regulates your speed to maintain the same interval behind that car.
Because the Mercedes cars both have front-engine/rear-drive, an ultrasophisticated traction-control system is expected. If anything, the Mercedes is over-engineered, but nobody who has driven an S-500 or S-430 would suggest it is not worth the seemingly outrageous price. But, thanks to Night Vision, Cadillac is prepared to offer a U.S. challenge to those seeking the ultimate in technical gadgetry.
Audi TT, Ford Focus, Lincoln LS named finalists
Before it’s time to say: “The envelope…please…” we first must open the bigger envelope, to look over the three finalists for North American Car of the Year.
The three finalists, alphabetically, are: Audi TT Coupe, Ford Focus, and Lincoln LS. It is a divergent threesome this time around, which may be appropriate for the end of the millenium. You’ve got your stunning sports car in the Audi TT, a new-technology entry level — which is to say “affordable” — compact in the Focus, and a breakthrough sedan that can be either luxurious or surprisingly sporty in the Lincoln LS.
Truck of the Year finalists are equally as spread out: Dodge Dakota Quad Cab, Nissan Xterra, and Toyota Tundra. The Dakota is a mid-size pickup that has gone beyond the jump-seat extended-cab concept to add a full rear seat with full 4-door cabin, and still has the pickup box. The Xterra is a no-compromise fun Sport-Utility Vehicle with serious off-road capabilities instead of luxury touches and a modest price tag. The Tundra is Toyota’s first attempt at a full-size pickup and it undoubtedly will challenge the Big Three of Ford F150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram in the marketplace.
The votes are in, and now we all must wait three weeks for the start of the most significant U.S. auto show, the North American International Auto Show at Detroit, to see who wins the award. I am privileged to be on the jury of 48 men and women selected from among the nation’s automotive journalists to vote on the award.
The award is the top one in the country, although you may be excused for being confused about such awards. There are, after all, so many of these things, done by magazines, independent groups and virtually every organization that wants to call attention to itself. The organizing committee for the North American COY board claims there are 674 such awards in North America alone, although these guys are veteran journalists who can be excused if they dabble in occasional sarcasm about the competition.
The award started in 1994 because this small group of automotive journalists, some of whom had once worked for operations where advertising and marketing prevailed over objectivity, realized that the ad-marketing side had taken over so much of the impact of new cars that it was time for a totally objective car of the year deal. So they came up with this unique concept: By assembling a group of diverse automotive journalists, linked by an intense desire to get inside and personal with automobiles, they could compile the group’s subjective votes into an objective total.
The concept is to provide the cross-referenced benefit to consumers, rather than to advertisers or marketing wizards. Among the jurors, some may like sports cars best, some may like luxury barges, and others might prefer SUVs. But all can appreciate the best points of each category, and no matter how subjective their vote is, the overview of 48 voters comes out with validity. Last year, the winner was the Volkswagen New Beetle for cars, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee among trucks. Pretty hard to argue with those choices. And, for the first time, both were my top choices.
As it turns out, these two awards, for car and truck, are the only two in North America that are done solely by an independent group of automotive journalists. The membership has changed over the years, and there are rules to follow. The key is to first include only those cars that have been significantly redone or introduced for the new year. Simply reskinning a car or putting a different grille or interior on a vehicle doesn’t cut it.
The standards are to examine the candidates for their assets and how they might have an impact on the industry. Technical innovation, safety, attractiveness, performance, economy and pleasure are among the criteria, and in more recent years the board urged us all to stress affordability more, because we had been somewhat consumed by a trend toward costly luxury and sports cars; if money is no object our choices are easier, but we lose the real-worldliness of our selections.
We make a preliminary vote to cut the new cars down to a workable list of candidates, trying for 10, but settling this year for 14 cars and 10 trucks. We had until Dec. 10 to get our votes in, and the tricky part is you get 25 points to be awarded separately for both cars and trucks. You can give one vehicle in either category a maximum of 10 points, and you can spread out the 25 points to include as many as you want.
The tricky part is that virtually every car on the list deserves some merit, so it gets pretty tough to hand out the points. This year, more than any, there were some very worthy contenders that didn’t even get named among the final candidates, let alone the three finalists.
Here are the nominated candidates this year: Cars–Audi TT, BMW X5, Cadillac Deville, Ford Focus, Ford Taurus, Honda S2000, Jaguar S-Type, Lincoln LS, Mercedes S-Class, Nissan Maxima, Saturn L Series, Toyota Echo, Volkswagen Golf and Volvo S40/V40. Trucks–Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe, Dodge Dakota Quad Cab, Ford Excursion, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, Isuzu Vehicross, Nissan Frontier Crew Cab, Nissan Xterra, Toyota Tundra.
The winners will be announced on Monday, January 10, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. As of now, only one person knows the winners, and that is the vice chairman of the outfit that is contracted to compile the votes.
My votes were spread out among these cars: The Audi TT, Honda S2000, Volvo S40, Ford Focus, Lincoln LS, Mercedes S-Class, and the BMW X5.
We’ll deal with the trucks next week, but my votes went to the Toyota Tundra, Nissan Xterra, Dodge Quad Cab, Nissan Frontier Crew Cab, and Ford Excursion.
My reasoning in the car competition was a difficult blend. The Audi TT is spectacular from every standpoint, and is reasonably priced as well; the Honda S2000 with its incredible 9,000-RPM redline engine and great look and feel, as well as price, made it worthy despite its strict sports-car aim; the Volvo S40 looks, operates and feels like a $35,000 car but is amazingly priced at more like $25,000; the Focus is a high-tech economy car that also is fun to drive for under $13,000; the LS breaks away from Lincoln’s image of plush, luxury cars to add technology and the flair of European sports sedans; the Mercedes is priced very high, from $70,000-$90,000, but it may be that the most impressive car in the world requires a money-is-no-object analysis; the BMW X5 is that company’s made-in-the-USA attempt at an SUV.
Here’s a closer look at the three finalists.
AUDI TT
Audi has made tremendous strides in the last decade, coming back from the point where it almost withdrew its cars from the U.S. The A4 is a sedan that turned the German company around, and it hasn’t stopped coming up with higher and higher technology at reasonable prices, and with traditiona German style and durability.
The TT, however, went from a far-out concept car to reality in three years, and it is the focal point to show that this strong, staunch German company can, indeed, produce a pleasurable car that maintains all of its company traditions while going back for a retro version of race cars from decades past. There is nothing current about the TT, it is rather an amazing blend of retro and futuristic, and it starts at $30,000.
It comes with a 1.8-liter 4-cylinder engine, with five valves per cylinder, dual overhead camshafts and a low-pressure turbocharger that gives it full torque at barely above idle RPMs and maintains it well beyond normal shift points. It was first available as front-wheel drive, then Audi’s fabulous quattro system of all-wheel drive was added, and the next upgrade will be to offer a roadster (convertible) and a 225-horsepower engine.
The key, however, is its visual appeal. Inside, all sorts of brushed aluminum items come in geometric shapes, such as cylinders and circles. The seats are excellent, and the instrumentation is all well placed, plus it comes on with a stunning blue glow at night. From the outside, the TT is amazing. You can look at it from any angle — I particularly like the view from the rear — and it stops you in your tracks. If you like the look, it rivets your attention, but even if you find the look odd, you simply cannot stop looking at it.
LINCOLN LS
Lincoln’s always have had this floaty, traditional U.S. bigger-is-better so softer-is-better ride, and they have tended to be barge-like. For 2000, Lincoln has caught us by surprise with the LS sedan, because it is much more like European touring sedans, with taut, firm suspension, firmly supportive seats, and firm-enough suspension so that you can corner and steer with precision instead of wallow.
The tightness of the body adds to the classiness rather than detracting from it. Nobody would say a BMW sedan lacks luxurious class, and the LS is a reasonably priced ($34,690) challenger for that style of driving.
The LS is a product of Ford’s takeover of Jaguar, and the LS shares the platform and engines with the new Jaguar sedan. That means it gets the U.S.-built Duratec V6, which is surprisingly peppy in such a large sedan, or it gets the Jaguar-designed 3.9-liter V8, with 252 horsepower. Both are dual-overhead cam engines with four valves per cylinder.
Most startling, is that the LS comes with either the normal or sports package. The sports package has firmed suspension, which helps quicken the steering for sporty driving, and you can get the car with a 5-speed manual transmission. A Lincoln with a stick!
Impressed as I was with the LS handling when I drove the V6 with the manual shift, I was disappointed at first when I drove the fully loaded V8 without the sports package. However, it appears to be clever marketing by Lincoln. It means the car appeals to both the traditional luxury-seeker who wants a softer, spongier ride, and to the contemporary younger businessman who wants his luxury in a form that also can be driven hard and with enjoyment.
The styling is equally a departure for Lincoln, and the LS is priced over $10,000 under its Jaguar counterpart.
FORD FOCUS
This car could well win the award, because it is an attempt to rein in the high cost of driving a car these days. With a base price down near $10,000, the entry-level Focus will range from around $11,000 in modest form to around $13,000 in the sportiest trim.
I had the chance to drive both, starting with the basic 4-door (5-door, if you count the hatchback), to the sporty 3-door in bright red with alloy wheels. That’s the one that would look good with a ribbon and a bow this morning, and it’s almost compact enough to fit under your Christmas tree.
The sedan handled well and was impressive, much in the way the new Toyota Echo is, as a new-generation affordable car. They are pleasant breaks from all the monster SUVs and trucks that seem to fill the roadways these days, and they may get us back to efficient, inexpensive, front-wheel-drive driving and owning. In fact, pickup, SUV and van owners should have a car like this as their alternative vehicle.
Both Focus models come with Ford’s Zetec 4-cylinder engine, but in two forms. The Focus 4-door came with the 115-horsepower single-overhead cam version, and it had adequate pep and power, even with its automatic transmission.
The little red Focus was the prize, however. It had the upgraded 130-horse version of the Zetec, with dual-overhead cams. It was much more fun to drive, undoubtedly aided by the larger wheels with more aggressive tires. With the instrumentation, comfort and other interior amenities all in place, the Focus fits its niche well — which is slightly larger than the Escort and slightly smaller than the Contour.
The Escort and Contour are still around, but are about to be phased out in the U.S., with the Focus being sold worldwide and replacing both in the U.S. market. Sleek as it looks, the Focus is a little taller than you realize, which gives it excellent interior headroom, and signals a new dimension in form-follows-function design, where the form looks as good as the function functions.
The TT, Focus and LS all would be worthy winners. My vote total gave the award to the Audi TT, but my guess at this point is that the winner might well be the Focus. Now we just have to wait until Jan. 10 to find out.
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