Race-designed Monte Carlo works better on normal roads
[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The Chevrolet Monte Carlo, redesigned for 2000, has a sleeker version of the model’s traditional blend of curves and angles. The design was aided by race engineers, but you’d be advised to stay off the superspeedways with the consumer version.
2/ The tall rear with its vertical taillights is distinctive and houses a generously spacious trunk.
3/ Comfortable seating plus a distinctive instrument cluster and remote audio controls on the steering wheel set off the interior. ]]]]
Rarely has a car sold in showrooms used auto racing as blatantly as the 2000 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
Chevy has gone overboard this time, trying to tie its showroom success into its anticipated track success, where such luminaries as Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt lead the Chevy-driving force. Even the press kit for the new car comes complete with a picture of the car all lettered up, the way it was to act as pace car for last year’s Indianapolis 500, and the official press information refers frequently to the car’s racing heritage.
“NASCAR-inspired performance,” it says here. “Racing had a major influence on the 2000 Monte Carlo’s bold new appearance, and extensive wind-tunnel testing was a key part of the design process.”
A General Motors executive said: “GM motorsports engineers were involved in the very early stages of Monte Carlo’s development. Their input helped Monte Carlo achieve a look that is attractive and functional. It’s a shape that works well onteh street and the racetrack.”
At another point the brochure says: “The 2000 Monte Carlo embodies the spirit of its NASCAR counterpart through its emphasis on a performance-oriented driving experience.”
As it gets more detailed, the promotion book says: “Â…future Monte Carlo race cars will be as close to stock as possible, using production sheet metal in the hood, roof and decklidÂ…The shape of the Monte Carlo’s windshield and rear fascia is the same for both production and race car versionsÂ…The similarities between production and race cars are designed to benefit both. For instance, the Monte Carlo team designed the front end, particularly the hood, to generate the downforce that the Monte Carlo race car will need to hold the track. In the rear, the hard edge of the deck lid helps reduce wind drag. In Winston Cup racing, less drag means a higher top-end speed. For the production version, it means excellent raod stability and enhanced fuel efficiency. It’s a real win-win for both the track and the showroom.”
Of course, somewhere out there in this great land of ours, there might be millionsÂ…thousandsÂ…hundreds — OK, dozens? — of car-buyers who actually believe that there is any similarity between showroom cars and the cars NASCAR pilots fly at 180 miles per hour around the nation’s superspeedways.
Monte Carlos compete with Ford Taurus 4-door sedans, and Pontiac Grand Prix coupes in NASCAR racing. So stop down at any one of those showrooms and tell ’em you’d like to buy a car just like one of those NASCAR racers — with a front-mounted V8 and rear drive, and with a 5-speed manual shifter. Needless to say, you can’t get those attributes in any of those cars. The Monte Carlo, like the Taurus and Grand Prix, comes with your choice of two V6 engines, in front-wheel-drive only, and with any transmission you choose, as long as it’s a 4-speed automatic.
The race cars, of course, used to be far-out technical pieces, which pushed manufacturers to build better, higher-performing vehicles. But NASCAR, like the NHRA drag-racing bosses, chose about two decades ago to stay with what they always had, while the automotive world turned toward higher technology. In NASCAR, you can run a V8, but you cannot run an overhead-camshaft engine of any kind. Why? Because overhead-cams are high-tech, and NASCAR justified staying with low-tech pushrod designs because of the vast availability of racing parts from high-performance shops. They also demand carburetors, whereas you cannot find a car these days, on either side of any ocean, that uses a carburetor anymore. It’s all fuel-injection.
So NASCAR, which used to push manufacturers to the utmost, now restrains them. You can get a trick overhead-cam V6 in a Taurus, for example, but not in a race car. General Motors, however, doesn’t offer an overhead-cam engine in the Monte Carlo either on the track or in the showroom.
On the race track, the Monte Carlo is powered by a 358 cubic inch V8 with a 4-barrel carburetor. In the showroom, the Monte Carlo is powered by a front transaxle 3,400 cc. V6 in the LS, and the 3,800 cc. V6 in the Monte Carlo SS.
I had a chance to test-drive a Monte Carlo SS, bright red, stunning to look at. The 3,800 V6 is the modern derivative of a 40-year-old Buick engine, tweaked by applying all sorts of technical upgrades to deliver 200 horsepower and 225 foot-pounds of torque. Chevrolet boasts that that compares favorably with the 5.0-liter V8 from the 1983 Monte Carlo, which only put out 180 horsepower in a much-more-strangled day of pollution-controlled engines. But compare it to an engine like Chrysler’s 2.7-liter V6 with dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, and you realize technology can pull 200 horsepower out of a much smaller powerplant.
All of this NASCAR race talk has an ironic twist. In 1969, Chevrolet introduced the Monte Carlo as an early 1970 model. In 1971, it started winning on the stock car tracks, and its success in racing paralleled its sales success. After the 1988 model year, however, the Monte Carlo disappeared, replaced by the Lumina nameplate, which was offered as a sedan or coupe. But in 1995, the Monte Carlo returned, replacing the Lumina coupe.
It wasn’t until this year, the 2000 model run, that Chevy did extensive race-preparation development of the new car. It’s true that race engineers helped design the front end for maximum downforce, and the body shape for wind-tunnel-test approval that was to equate to an advantage on the race tracks. But here’s the stunning reality: when the teams hit the track for the season-opening race at Daytona, the new Monte Carlo was no match for the Fords. Chevy drivers moaned and complained and whined throughout the week of preparation for the Daytona 500 that the Ford’s had too much advantage.
The race came, and the Chevy complaints proved correct. Ford dominated the Daytona race, and NASCAR — as usual — scrambled hastily to allow sweeping changes. The Chevy was declared uncompetitive on superspeedways, so race teams were allowed to shove the snout out another two inches, and change the configuration to improve aerodynamics and make the car more competitive for the Tauruses.
Fascinating, isn’t it? Chevy had the ad machine at full speed, even though the Monte Carlos couldn’t get there. So the ads still run, about how racy the Monte Carlo is, and about how extensive race-team design helped with the new Monte. Meanwhile, the most race-prepared stock car ever designed didn’t work without being redesigned.
It must also be pointed out that the Monte Carlo worked just fine on the other, shorter race tracks, where they, in fact, seem to dominate. It was just on the superspeedways, where high-speed drafting aerodynamics are all-important, that the things needed modification. No word yet on whether NASCAR will give Ford a break on the shorter tracks.
ON THE STREET
The road-test, of course, had nothing to do with racing, but everything to do with enjoying and appreciating another in the recent fleet of new and improved GM products. The Monte Carlo is tight, handles well, comfortably equipped and loaded with creature comforts. Although a coupe, you could put three adults in the rear seat, if you can find three adults willing to climb in and over the folded front seats.
Chevy claims the Monte Carlo is the largest-selling midsized coupe in its class, but, come to think of it, Ford and Chrysler don’t make similarly sized coupes.
When it comes to looks, the Monte Carlo always has been popular, but it always has had an unusual shape. Remember back to the first ones, in the ’70s? The long hood was flanked by a swoopy curve along the upper ridge of the front fenders, which followed an arc down toward the rear of the front door. Then the short rear deck was topped by a similar but different-arc curve along the rear fenders. The roofline was always squared off, chopping down abruptly to fit onto that rear deck.
Chevy fans went crazy for the look. Critics sort of frowned, thinking that the car had been designed in particles, where the designer of the front fender, the roofline and the rear fender had apparently not met, and each was working off a different scale.
The new Monte Carlo has some touches that come from those early cars, with an ultra-modern twist, of course. The long, sleek nose starts with an unusual one-piece shape of glass over the headlights and directional signal. The front fender has that same sort of curve, and the rear fender line traces a different arc, while the roofline falls in a graceful slope back to the rear deck, and the rear window chops down straight. That may create a large blind spot, but it is attractive.
I particularly like the styling of the rear end, with its tall, vertical taillights, and high-rise rear.
The interior works well, with full instrumentation featuring four gauges clustered on the left, a large speedometer, and then a smaller tachometer on the right. Audio controls are above the heat/air switches on the center panel, and remote switches are located at thumb’s reach on the steering wheel. The seats are good, although they could use more lumbar support, in my opinion.
For a base price of $19,000 and a listed sticker of nearly $25,000, once you add in the SS package and the leather seats with the CD-playing audio system, alloy wheels, and all that, the Monte Carlo is sure to be a hit with long-time Chevrolet zealots as the new standard for families who want a racy appearance but need more room than a Camaro can offer, but who still crave a 2-door coupe.
The car’s looks are definitely in the eye-catching category. Especially in the bright red paint of the test car. With a floorpan that has been reinforced with crossmembers, and improved stiffness from the suspension and stabilizer bars front and rear, the Monte feels good and firm on the road. And the 3800 V6 engine, while older and outmoded compared to GM’s newest jewel, the 3.5-liter V6 used only in the Oldsmobile Intrigue and Aurora, does have adequate power for normal usage, and delivers consistently good fuel economy, ranging from 20-29 miles per gallon. The Monte also has the added safety of 4-wheel disc brakes, and some nice features, such as traction control, a tire-pressure monitoring system that warns you if your air-pressure decreases, a pollen filter that works with the heat/air system, and the dealer-installed availability of GM’s slick OnStar navigation system.
The Monte is sure to be a big hit with Chevy-lovers, although it remains to be seen whether the Monte Carlo can capture buyers from other makers. Chevrolet lists the Monte’s top competitors as the Dodge Avenger, Chrysler Sebring and Mercury Cougar, with Honda Accord Coupe and Toyota Solara as secondary competitors. I don’t think so. First, the Avenger is no more, being replaced by the Dodge Stratus coupe, which is just about to be introduced. The Cougar name, of course, has been applied to a new and much smaller coupe and the old Cougar, which was Monte Carlo sized, is no more. As for the Accord coupe and Solara, they are much sleeker, more compact coupes.
And it is difficult to imagine a Honda Coupe buyer, who wants a variable-valve-timing, multi-valve, overhead-cam high-techie engine, deciding to go for the Monte Carlo’s shape and lines but settling for a pushrod engine, just like his daddy or granddaddy once bought 20 or 30 years ago.
Lexus GS300, Acura 3.2TL compete for upscale customers
[[[[[CUTLINES:
#1/ The Lexus GS300 isisn’t as high-performance as the GS400, but it proved impressive in foul-weather driving for a rear-wheel-drive sedan.
#2/ The Acura 3.2TL is an over-achiever for performance, luxury and as a near-luxury sedan bargain.
#3/ Acura’s navigation system can be adjusted from a scale that shows an area like the Twin Cities’ northern suburbs to a map that shows the route from there to Duluth. ]]]]]]]]]
Toyota and Honda have carried their duel for popularity among U.S. car-buyers to ever-increasing lengths. After going head-to-head, they built plants in the U.S. to have closer ties with this vast marketplace, then they added upper-scale branches to keep their loyal buyers from having to go elsewhere for more expensive cars, with Honda starting up its Acura outlet and Toyota bringing out a whole new line of Lexus vehicles.
The competition between the two has never been more intense, and I recently had the chance to put two of their finer products through some actual heavy-duty winter usage, with interesting results.
The two cars in question were the Acura 3.2TL, which is that brand’s middle car — a luxury sedan based on the Honda Accord platform but with so many upgrades that you might not notice the family ties — and the Lexus GS300 — also the mid-range vehicle for Lexus, and one that represents a distinct break from family ties.
The Acura 3.2 TL is smooth and impressive, with the inherent benefits of front-wheel-drive, which gave it a huge advantage against the worst ice and snow the Up North area could muster — this winter, at least. It also represents one of the best luxury-car bargains at $30,000, because it comes loaded to the sunroof with every imaginable feature. The only option is a navigation system, and the test car had that feature, which is one of the best of the ever-increasing number of computerized find-your-way-home concepts.
A comparable Lexus model might be the ES300, which is based on the Toyota Camry platform, and which I also drove recently, but timing made the higher-performing GS300 the car of the moment. The Lexus GS400 is one of the swiftest accelerating cars in the world, and while the 300 has a smaller engine and more modest performance, it might be the better all-around vehicle on the front-engine/rear-drive chassis. At just over $38,000, the GS300 proves that high performance is not inexpensive.
LEXUS GS300
At first, I thought the Lexus folks had lost their minds when they sent a rear-wheel-drive car to be tested in January in Minnesota. Especially when I wasn’t going to be in Minnesota for the full week, but was also going to venture off to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. We may have sworn off snow, for the most part, this winter, but the U.P. went onward and upward beyond 90 inches of snow accumulation the weekend I was in Houghton.
So if Lexus thought enough of its traction-control system to send me the GS300, I’d be willing to take on those icy roads and daily whiteouts. While driving up to 100 different vehicles a year, the advantages of such things as front-wheel-drive become pretty obvious in slippery conditions. True, you can drive beyond your potential with front-wheel-drive, but at least you don’t have to worry about the rear wheels trying to overtake the front, as they do inherently with rear-drive cars.
At the same time, while growing up learning to drive rear-drive cars on the slippery slopes of Duluth, I also am confident we all could get through the worst winters with rear-wheel drive. You have to be much more cautious, and much more delicate about stepping on the gas pedal when the rear wheels do the spinning, but you can make it. And you get that extra adrenaline boost that we fondly call “white-knuckling” a car through dicey conditions.
After Lexus had made the top luxury LS400 and the entry level “near-luxury” ES300, the GS models are comparative late-comers. They seem to be Toyota’s attempt to disprove the theory that it builds cars so foolproof as to lack personality — more appliances than fun-to-drive vehicles. So the GSes have a distinctive, blunt-front look, and high-performance touches throughout, from engines to suspensions. While the GS400 is a V8-powered rocket, the GS300 is powered by a six-cylinder engine, and an in-line 6 instead of the V6 Toyota has made commonplace in various other cars and trucks.
But make no mistake, the 6 doesn’t make the GS300 a non-performer. It still goes and handles with great force and precision, thanks to four valves per cylinder, dual overhead camshafts and variable valve timing. Inside, the luxurious leather and creature-comforts you’d expect from a near-$40,000 car abound, but they have a firmer edge from the performance slant of the suspension, steering and overall feel. That is all very impressive on dry pavement, but when I drove over Wisconsin’s South Shore and got onto the ice-covered highways of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, I was relieved that the car was armed with the substantial 220-horsepower and 220-foot-pounds of torque 6 instead of the 300-horsepower GS400.
With plenty of interior and trunk room for five occupants,and a great audio system that included a cassette player in the dash and a CD changer in the glove compartment, the performance personality of the GS300 came through loud and clear at all times, much the way any BMW might — which is the highest praise. And while I had to keep reminding myself to use extra caution, the traction-control system allowed me to operate without difficulty in all circumstances. A rocker switch on the center console allows you to switch from power, to off, to snow. The trick is, whenever you get in the car, you have to reset it. On my weekend, you got the constant reminder, because every time you climbed aboard you felt the tendency to spin. In the snow setting, the car chugged on out of every situation, including climbing some steep hills in Houghton, or negotiating the streets to find the best bakery for the legendary pasties of Hancock, across the bridge. A similar rocker controls the seat heaters, which were welcome features for starting out in the cold.
The power was always immediately available, and was harnessed by a 5-speed automatic that could be manually shifted. The zig-zag pattern of the shifter made me forget and leave the thing “up” in fourth for a hundred miles or so before I realized you could go “up and over” to find fifth’s overdrive. On icier roadways, fourth was the better choice, or third.
Driving from Houghton to Duluth in the middle of the night, we were thankful for the high banks where plows had stashed all that snow, because keeping the car between the ditches was aided by the peaks of piled snow when the “lake effect” snow created constantly whiteout-obscured roadways.
I have always enjoyed driving in all conditions, and there is an undeniably enhanced excitement driving on icy roads for a sustained period of time. The white-knuckle effect of added adrenaline required with a rear-wheel-drive car is something that might terrify some, even though I find it extra stimulating. But it’s still not enough to recommend any rear-engine vehicle for Up North winter driving. Sure, you can make it anywhere, even enjoy the extra challenge of handling rear-drive in the most-foul conditions. A high-tech sedan with the sophisticated excellence of the GS300, makes it easier to get through the worst situations, but trading that edge of heart-in-your-throat excitement for the much more carefree driving of a front-wheel-drive car makes you ask the question: Why risk it?
ACURA 3.2TL
Acura was first of the Japanese companies to go upscale, with the Legend, and it brought out the less-expensive Integra also, and a midrange Vigor. For some inexplainable reason, Honda dropped the familiar Legend name and replaced it with the formula “name” of the 3.5RL, and then there was the TL, and other far less distinguishable nameless names of other models. If you didn’t know there was a more expensive and more luxurious model than the 3.2TL, however, it would be sufficient to satisfy all the demands from normal to ner-luxury to luxury.
The 3.2 stands for the liters of displacement of the V6 engine, which has single overhead camshafts operating 24 valves, with Honda’s fantastic VTEC variable valve timing system. While the 3.2TL is not aimed at being a high-performance sedan, and its styling is definitely sedate, it has excellent power and it, too, has a 5-speed automatic that is even more easily manually shifted. A small gate to the left of the shifter’s track allows you to notch the shifter over and then just tap it, spring-loaded, ahead or back to upshift or downshift.
Like the GS Lexus models, the 3.2TL has double-wishbone suspension front and rear and 4-wheel disc brakes, although the Acura’s ride and scope is a bit more supple than the all-out performance firmness of the GS Lexus. And, both Honda and Toyota have advanced to the forefront of safety techniques, and the 3.2 TL has front and side airbags with rigid bodyshells designed with front and rear crumple zones and side-impact beams. It also had leather seats and all sorts of comfort things and an exceptional BOSE AM-FM-cassette-CD audio system.
For all the features, staying under $30,000 and being built in the U.S. plant at Marysville, Ohio, make the Acura 3.2TL a serious contender for the near-luxury crowd. As for the only option, the navigation system is excellent.
The satellite-linked DVD navigation system has a map-like readout on the dashboard’s center console. It’s not obtrusive enough to bother your driving, but it can be helpful at a glance to keep you headed where you want to be going. You can adjust the scale to give you close-up guidance in a specific area, or you can broaden the scope to cover a couple-hundred miles. It is easier than most to tap in the locale, by address or intersection or landmark, of your destination, then the map keeps you posted and a gentle voice suggests that you might want to “turn right at the next intersection,” or “take the next exit,” or, if you’ve overrun your destination, “make a u-turn at the next available opportunity.” It would be handy if you were worried about being lost, and the trip seems shorter when you can see the blue patch of Lake Superior as you’re approaching Duluth, for example.
Honda has gone out of its way to make the 3.2TL understated. Simple design replaces complexity in every feature, inside and out.
But where Toyota’s slant is to take its conservative and cautious reputation on a wild ride in the high-performance GS300, Honda has taken its reputation for high-performance and technical advancement, and tried to understate it with conservative packaging.
However, it is impossible to suppress the eagerness with which the 3.2TL performs. The engine is qujick and responsive, and you can get a racey feel by running it up through those manually controlled shifts, while the handling and quick-steering control is always precise, while every control falls into your hands with ergonomic perfection. The fact that Honda wants to wrap all that in a luxurious setting shouldn’t bother the customers at all.
There is one interesting feature. Honda always tends to put top-grade Michelin tires on its better cars, and while Michelins may be unexcelled at long wear and sustained high-speed cruising, there are a lot of better ice and snow tires available. Even the all-season Michelins don’t retain their flexibility in the cold, and prefer to slipslide a bit on ice. But with the 3.2TL’s front-wheel drive, you simply counter it with throttle control and steer around or through such situations.
The 3.2TL, pricewise, compares very well with the Lexus ES300, and while its outright performance doesn’t match the more performance-oriented GS300, it offers a superb compromise of both ends of the near-luxury/performance sedan scope.
Intrigue engine pulls it ahead of GM — and other — competitors
[[[[[[[[CUTLINES:
#1/ The midnight blue Oldsmobile Intrigue has a lean, sophisticated Aurora-look-alike style, and a 3.5-liter V6 makes it the most high-tech of GM’s midsize sedans.
#2/ Leather seats and good ergonomics makes the driver’s seat of the 2000 Intrigue an inviting place.
#3/ Which Buick is which? Is the new test car on the right (a.) a Park Avenue, (b.) a Park Avenue Ultra, (c.) a Century, (d.) a LeSabre, or (e.) a Regal? How about the one on the left? If you guessed the one on the right is a LeSabre, you’re right; the one on the left is a Park Avenue. ]]]]]]
It’s fascinating to watch the different competing automobile companies alter their concepts of competition. Take General Motors, for example.
GM is the biggest, and it has all the different divisions — Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet and GMC trucks. Over the years, GM executives have worked with their marketing folks to alter the batch, sometimes making them remarkably similar, sometimes trying to differentiate them as much as possible. For 2000, it seems that the trend toward differentiating continues.
And it makes sense. I mean, why try to sell folks large, medium, intermediate and compact cars that are virtually the same, from each branch? For years, Chevy has been the producer of cars for everybody, Pontiac has been the high-performance branch, Buick has been the stately, conservative arm, and Cadillac has been the luxury division. As for Oldsmobile? For a lot of years, it seemed like the forgotten branch. Sales faltered, and GM came up with the “It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile” commercials because fathers were getting on up in years, to the point where they weren’t buying cars much anymore.
Throughout the different divisions, chassis platforms were the same at each size level, and the engine options also were the same, except for Cadillac. Then, right about the time the hot rumor was that GM would simply eliminate Oldsmobile in a financial move to streamline the product lines, the decision turned 180 degrees. That’s when Olds brought out the Aurora, a near-luxury sedan, with a smaller version of Cadillac’s stunning Northstar V8 engine, a dual-overhead-cam gem that became the basis for the Indy Racing League’s cars.
Suddenly, Olds was on an upward move, and it found a niche as GM’s new high-technology division.
The reason that branch was open was that GM, for monetary reasons, had stuck to its older generation of engines mostly. With V8 engines that were nearing 50 years of use, and V6 engines nearing 40, GM engineers were kept busy trying to extract better fuel economy, lower emissions and maybe another horsepower or two from those aging engines, where the valvetrain was operated by camshafts located in the block, rather than above the cylinders. Those engineers did a heck of a job, trying to compete with other domestic and import companies that spent more to develop overhead-cam technology, followed closely by multiple valves and variable valve-timing. Loyal GM buyers kept buying the cars, so GM had kept producing more of the same — possibly outdated, but fully adequate and sophisticated powerplants.
Finally, GM decided to build a new, high-tech V6. In a brilliant stroke of engineering, they chopped the two end cylinders off a Northstar V8 and came up with a 3.5-liter V6. That happened to be just about when Oldsmobile was coming out with a new sedan in the highly competitive midsize category, where the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Ford Taurus, and various versions of other GM divisions had ruled. The timing was perfect, and the new car — the Intrigue — was fitted with the new, dual-overhead-cam, 4-valve-per-cylinder V6. The resurgent division truly became GM’s high-tech arm, because while all branches had a similar high-tech new sedan, only Olds got the all-new, high-tech V6.
Comparing two divisions gives a remarkable picture. Look at Buick, for example, alongside Oldsmobile. Buick has the Park Avenue Ultra, the Park Avenue, the LeSabre, the Regal, and the Century. Interestingly enough, Buick designers chose to make all the cars very similar in looks, and in that slightly altered “Coke-bottle” shape, with the little hump about where the back door ends. Both the Century and the Regal ride on 109-inch wheelbase — identical to the Intrigue — and the larger LeSabre and Park Avenues are slightly longer. The Century uses a 3.1-liter V6, which is a derivation of the aged 2.8, while the Regal, LeSabre, Park Avenue and Park Avenue Ultra all are equipped with the 3800 Series II V6, a very good pushrod engine, and the higher-performance Regal GS, and the Park Avenue Ultra offer the 3800 with a supercharger, which pushes base power from 200 in the Regal and 230 in the LeSabre up to 230 in the blown version.
More than the engine, however, the family resemblance is so similar that if you parked a Century, Regal, LeSabre and Park Avenue side-by-side 100 feet away, you would have to be an absolute Buick zealot to be able to tell them apart.
At Oldsmobile, meanwhile, there is a definite similarity as well. The Intrigue was designed to look a lot like the Aurora, and it came out so closely resembling it that Olds redesigned the Aurora for 2000 with some distinctions to separate them. From the front, however, both are similar, with the nose tapering up sharply with similar aerodynamics. The compact Alero, in fact, looks like a mini-Intrigue.
I had the chance to test out the various Buick models recently, as well as a new Intrigue GLS. The Buicks displayed their similarities on the inside, too, where the controls and seating were all family related. Nothing wrong with them, and, in fact, it’s an interesting concept to make them so similar that a customer can go right up the price scale, picking a Regal that’s not quite 2 inches longer than a Century, or a LeSabre that is 4.6 inches longer than a Regal, or a Park Avenue that is 6 inches longer than the LeSabre. When it comes to brakes, the Century and LeSabre both have front discs with rear drums, while the Regal and Park Avenue step up to 4-wheel discs.
OLDSMOBILE STEPS AHEAD
The 2000 Intrigue steps ahead as the only branch of GM that gets to use the 3.5-liter V6, which delivers 215 horsepower and 230 foot-pounds of torque. The numbers aren’t all that different from the much-revised 3800, but the potential is a world apart. Last year, Olds buyers had to pay a premium price to get the 3.5 over the 3800, proving the added cost of high-tech. This year, all Intrigues get the same 3.5. Most overhead-cam engines use heavy-duty belts to run the cams, and they can wear out after 65,000 or so miles. The 3.5 has chains, not belts, and they will never wear out. Only a few other engines have chains instead of belts, with the Chrysler 2.7 V6 among them. Those are among the reasons that I named both of those engines among my personal top 10 engines a few weeks ago.
The new Intrigue also has a Precision Control System, which combines speed sensors on all four wheels with a steering angle sensor, an integrated yaw sensor, and a hydraulic control unit. Yaw motion measures how much the car turns or wants to turn. When the system detects that the motion indicates a skid, rather than a planned turn, it measures speed and direction and alters the braking power to the appropriate wheels to keep you going straight.
The PCS is in addition to standard traction control, and it makes the Intrigue similar to such European techno-cars as BMW and Mercedes. Olds is quick to point that out, although BMW and Mercedes don’t make front-wheel-drive cars, so the need for such a control on the rear may be overdoing a good thing a bit. If, however, you panic a little in skid conditions and would appreciate the help in going straight during your missteps, the PCS is the perfect answer.
A revised 4-speed automatic transmission accompanies the 3.5, because the engines greater revving capabilities might have taxed the conventional automatic, so it’s been beefed up.
Stabilizer bars front and rear augment independent 4-wheel suspension, and a speed variable steering system means you need to exert slightly more pressure to turn at high speeds, which is another benefit, because small increments of steering change mean exaggerated response if you have light-feeling, over-boosted steering.
Driving the Intrigue was enjoyable. The engine seemed to have a hair-trigger jump to it whenever you hit the throttle, something that takes a few drives to get used to, and it revs smoothly all the way up.
Seats are comfortable and supportive, and all the controls are logically laid out and easy to find and use. The test car had an impressive stereo system, CD player and all. Trying the rear seat, you find that it is more than adequate for most families. If it’s big enough, then there’s no need to sacrifice the car’s assets to move up to a “full-size” car.
Olds will find plenty of competition for the Intrigue. Not only are the Camry, Accord and all-new Taurus worthy entries, but the Nissan Maxima and Mazda 626 are right there, and the new Mitsubishi Galant is an exceptional car. Also, newly revised and being tabbed among the potential best cars in that segment is the Volkswagen Passat. All of those are priced at $20,000, up to the mid-$20,000 area with enough options. That’s right about where the Intrigue is priced — $25,000 as a base price, and up around $28,000 is you load it up.
That puts it in Audi A4 and Lexus ES300 territory as well, and you can get a BMW 323 or the new Volvo S40 in that range.
But that, alone, tells you how high-tech the Intrigue is. The Cadillac Seville or the Aurora used to be the only GM cars that might be mentioned as realistic technical competitors for those impressive imports. And now the Intrigue is set to do battle with them.
The only problem GM faces, is that the Intrigue also will be a prime competitor for the Chevy Impala, Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick Regal and others. All of those are high-tech cars, but only the Intrigue has a high-tech engine to go along with it.
CAR SHOW TIME
The Chicago Auto Show is going on this week, and, right on the heels of Detroit, a few new things have been introduced there. I didn’t get there to witness the introductions, but two of the most impressive are an all-new Ford Ranger, and an all-new Toyota Tacoma.
Both are compact pickups, and will be 2001 models. The most impressive thing about the Ranger — which is built in the St. Paul plant and in Edison, N.J. — is that Ford finally reacted to the Ranger’s power shortcomings by installing the single-overhead-cam version of the 4.0-liter V6 from the Explorer into the Ranger. Lots more power and torque, and a smooth-revving engine that will zap right up to redline. It comes with a new 5-speed automatic that is a great performer.
Toyota, which is still trying to keep up with orders for the blockbuster introduction of the near-full-size Tundra pickup, has shown off the completely new Tacoma in full 4-door configuration, as a combined SUV-pickup.
Even high-tech cars handle ice only as well as their tires
[[[[[[[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1/ The Toyota Celica returns for the year 2000 with a bold, new look and a high-winding, high-performance engine as a departure from the company’s reputation for ho-hum vehicles.
#2/ Saab has added the Aero model to its 9.5 near-luxury sedan line, with various aerodynamic body panels to give it a proper Euro-performance image.
#3/ The Celica GT-S includes comfortable leather seats, an attractive instrument layout and an exceptional audio system. ]]]]]]]]]]
Driving a car is a challenge, and driving a car in foul weather is an extreme challenge. When a winter storm hits, you want to be driving a superb winter-driving car. But when you don’t, it might not be the car’s fault.
For true driving enthusiasts, the fun of having a vehicle perform as if attached to your innermost instincts is a true pleasure in life. Sports cars, sporty coupes, and more recently sports sedans have cut into that market — particularly European sedans with their high-performance capabilities, and others who have, thankfully, copied their assets.
But we here in the Up North region have specific needs in our winters. And sometimes the best performing cars simply can’t live up to our requisites, regardless of their pedigree. I recently had the chance to test-drive two new vehicles, the Toyota Celica and the Saab 9.5 Aero, both with impressive performance characteristics and pedigrees. Both were dazzling at their best, but were reduced to something completely different when a little snow showed up.
Both the Celica and the Saab are front-wheel drive, and both handle extremely well when it’s dry, or wet. But not when roads are icy, or snow-covered. When you skid or spin, first and foremost, look at the tires.
The Celica is all new and stunning in looks and performance. Toyota mounted Yokohama all-out performance tires on those stylish, 16-inch wheels. When I saw them, I flinched, recalling the last time I drove a car with Yokohamas in a Minnesota winter. My worst fears were reinforced.
Saabs, from Sweden, are among the great legendary winter cars in the world, and the fact that General Motors has bought out the company shouldn’t affect that. The Saab 9.5 is the costlier, near-luxury model, and the new Aero is the sportiest of those. To enhance the lowered stance and the firmer handling, Saab mounted Michelin Pilot tires all around. Michelin tires are known for being the best for long wear, high speed and durability, but they, too, have a hard tread compound that loses its flexibility when it gets down around freezing. I’ve gotten so that whenever I’m driving a car that skids or spins too easily, I make a quiet prediction — “Must be Michelins” — and then I pull over, climb out and check. I haven’t been wrong often.
Both these Pilot (pronounced “pee-LOW” for Michelin’s French heritage) and the Yokohamas are among the best in dry or wet conditions. Hard and firm on a race track. But when it gets cold, they get harder and firmer and their stopping ability on icy or snowy roads goes south. On skis, you’re allowed to swerve abruptly to the side and stop; imagine instead doing the downhill bit on skis with the rule that you COULDN’T swerve to stop. That’s what hard-compound tires are like.
So don’t blame the cars, and don’t pass up the urge to buy the car of your dreams. If your dealer isn’t sharp enough to switch and supply better all-season or all-out winter tires, then buy your own, mount them on separate wheels, and just switch ’em in November and switch ’em back again in April. You’re not wasting anything, because both sets will last twice as long as if you left them on year-round.
TOYOTA CELICA GT-S
Go back a decade, and the most enjoyable and satisfying cars to drive in the world might have been the fleet of Japanese-named sporty coupes. The Honda Prelude, Toyota Celica, Mitsubishi Eclipse (and its Chrysler cronies, the Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon), Acura Integra, Mazda MX-6 and Subaru SVX all had produced the compact but sleek modern-era sporty-coupes.
New-era sports cars have regained a chunk of that segment, sport-utility vehicles have attracted astounding amounts of disposable income that might otherwise have gone toward sporty coupes, and almost all of that generation of sporty coupes have gotten bigger, fatter, more expensive, or disappeared. The Prelude has become more eccentric, and the Eclipse has come out all new.
But now for 2000, Toyota steps boldly to the front of the class with a Y2K version of the Celica — the seventh remake of that popular “2+2” sporty coupe. I always liked the Celica of the ’80s, the one that was offered with an all-wheel-drive option. But the new one is the best, by a mile.
The styling is love-it or hate-it, and it doesn’t dazzle me as much as the rest of the car. Toyota went along with its California design studio folks to come up with a very chiseled, angular wedge that is truly eye-catching, from every angle. The interior is every bit as attractive, with good ergonomics for the air-heat switches and the audio system, neatly styled orange-on-charcoal instruments that have attracted some criticism, but are certain to be easier to live with as time passes.
And there is the trendy idea of making the pedals of unpadded aluminum with holes drilled, which race-car guys used to for the sake of making a car lighter by every possible ounce. The Celica is comparatively light, weighing in at just over 2,500 pounds. That makes it lighter than everything else in its class, and 500 pounds lighter than some. That helps with the cornering agility and the braking, which are both exceptional. (It is less than agile and exceptional when you try to make the Yokohamas do anything on ice or snow, however.) And it also helps the performance.
Toyota is painfully aware that while its reputation has been bolstered by its mainstream Camry and worry-free operation, chief rival Honda has become the real-world’s technology leader with its extremely high-revving Integra GS-R, Acura NSX, Civic Si and now the new S2000 sports car.
Consider the Celica GT-S a breakthrough to Toyota’s high-tech age. The GT-S engine is an all-new 1.8-liter 4-cylinder, comparatively small by standards where the Eclipse has gone from 1.8 to 2.0 to a 3.0-liter V6. Toyota went to Yamaha, the superb motorcycle maker long known for innovative engine design technology. The two worked together to come up with a gem — an engine that I included in my recent list of my top 10 favorite engines in the world. It has dual-overhead camshafts operating 4 valves per cylinder, with an all-aluminum block and head, and a variable-valve-timing system similar to Honda’s, which has a secondary camshaft that comes in to supply a whole new arc of power.
In the Celica, that cam comes in at 6,000 RPMs, which is about where some competitors’ engines demand you shift. The Celica redline is an eyelash under 8,000, up there where only Honda has dared venture. The engine hits 180 horsepower at full scream, 7,600 RPMs, and delivers 133 foot-pounds of torque at 6,800. That’s more than the Integra GS-R, and almost as much as the Eclipse V6, which, I would guess, the Celica would outrun on any road course because of its big weight advantage.
The GT-S also has a 6-speed transmission that is slick to shift and brilliantly defined, with close ratios from 1-through-5, and then a large gap to sixth. That means you can scream on up to every shift point, and still cruise on the freeway in comparative silence. That also helped achieve just over 25 miles per gallon.
The other major impression of testing the Celica GT-S is the price tag. The base price is $22,000, and you can load it up with options and still be barely up to $24,000. That’s a lot of car for the money, and an enormous amount of driving pleasure.
SAAB 9-5 AERO
Under General Motors tutelage, Saab has tried to return to its quirky roots. Thankfully. Saab always has been attractive to somewhat eccentric but intellectual buyers. The key on the floor, the safety-cage construction two decades before most other maufacturers “invented” it, and upright seats and visibility that defied the cushy tendency toward fatigue. In short, Saabs reflect their aircraft heritage.
The 9000 model augmented the 900 as a more luxurious model, and it met with indifferent sales. So the new models are redone and renamed, with the smaller vehicle the 9-3 and the larger one the 9-5.
The Aero model is lowered, and has subtlely flared front spoiler and side lower molding panels, but you’d almost like to see it side-by-side with the standard 9-5 to be sure of the differences. The suspension has stiffer springs and bigger brakes, with larger, 17-inch wheels. The performance upgrade, to keep up with the better suspension, is the same-old 2.3-liter 4-cylinder engine Saab has been using for well over a decade, but it’s a substantial engine with chain-driven dual-overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder, with a turbocharger to inject more air-fuel mixture into the manifold.
The result is greater power than a 4-cylinder can normally achieve (unless it goes with the Honda/Toyota scheme of variable valve-timing). In the Aero version, the Mitsubishi-built turbocharger is cranked up to 20 pounds of pressure, which extracts 225 horses at 5,500 revs, and 243 foot-pounds of torque at only 1,900 RPMs.
The test car had a 4-speed automatic transmission, which detracted from its supposed sporty-car performance. Its acceleration was just OK until you got the revs up a bit, and it took longer to get them there with the automatic, and reports that the 9-5 Aero can go 0-60 in under 7 seconds sound pretty fictitious if you’ve only driven the auto. I was able to get 21.2 miles per gallon in combined city-freeway driving.
For comfort and cruising, the Aero lives up to traditional Saab standards. My only problem is that the 9-3 has aircraft-like ergonomics, while the 9-5 tries to simulate them. An example is the ignition key on the floor trick. The old 900, and the 9-3, have the ignition switch on the floor, between the bucket seats. After getting used to it, you could get in, blindfolded, drop your arm down to full extension, and chances are the key would be precisely aimed to fit into the ignition. In the 9-5, there is a console bulging up between the plush leather buckets. So the ignition is positioned on the “floor,” but the floor is a foot closer to your hand. So, yes, it meets the recollection of Saab zealots, but you have to grope for it at half-extended reach.
The base price of $40,000 and an as-tested tag of just over that, puts the 9-5 Aero up there with some serious all-weather sedans such as the Audi A6 and the Volvo S80. That’s steep company.
The biggest drawbacks are because of my feeling about Saab’s foul-weather tradition. Take the windshield wipers, which cleared the windshield perfectly if it was warm, but left large patches of untouched glass when it got cold. Guess what? Often, when it snows and you need wipers, it’s cold.
As for the hard tires, I had to switch the Aero in and out of its “W” (for winter) setting by pushbutton and work at it to back out of my own driveway after a 3-inch snowfall. And my driveway is so close to level you’d hardly detect a slope. So driving on an icy road was more slithering, and attempts to brake for a stop sign led to some serious chattering of the antilock braking system, and starting up automatically had your “TCS” (for traction-control system) light flashing madly at you from the tachometer.
For a car that is a traditional world-class winter driver, Saab needs to pay more attention to more cold-weather testing. And quit shipping cars you hope to sell to folks in California, Arizona and Florida to Minnesota in February.
Even high-tech cars need proper tires to handle on ice
[[[[[[[CUTLINE STUFF:
#1/ The Toyota Celica returns for the year 2000 with a bold, new look and a high-winding, high-performance engine as a departure from the company’s reputation for ho-hum vehicles.
#2/ Saab has added the Aero model to its 9.5 near-luxury sedan line, with various aerodynamic body panels to give it a proper Euro-performance image.
#3/ The Celica GT-S includes comfortable leather seats, an attractive instrument layout and an exceptional audio system. ]]]]]]]]]]
Driving a car is a challenge, and driving a car in foul weather is an extreme challenge. When a winter storm hits, you want to be driving a superb winter-driving car. But when you don’t, it might not be the car’s fault.
For true driving enthusiasts, the fun of having a vehicle perform as if attached to your innermost instincts is a true pleasure in life. Sports cars, sporty coupes, and more recently sports sedans have cut into that market — particularly European sedans with their high-performance capabilities, and others who have, thankfully, copied their assets.
But we here in the Up North region have specific needs in our winters. And sometimes the best performing cars simply can’t live up to our requisites, regardless of their pedigree. I recently had the chance to test-drive two new vehicles, the Toyota Celica and the Saab 9.5 Aero, both with impressive performance characteristics and pedigrees. Both were dazzling at their best, but were reduced to something completely different when a little snow showed up.
Both the Celica and the Saab are front-wheel drive, and both handle extremely well when it’s dry, or wet. But not when roads are icy, or snow-covered. When you skid or spin, first and foremost, look at the tires.
The Celica is all new and stunning in looks and performance. Toyota mounted Yokohama all-out performance tires on those stylish, 16-inch wheels. When I saw them, I flinched, recalling the last time I drove a car with Yokohamas in a Minnesota winter. My worst fears were reinforced.
Saabs, from Sweden, are among the great legendary winter cars in the world, and the fact that General Motors has bought out the company shouldn’t affect that. The Saab 9.5 is the costlier, near-luxury model, and the new Aero is the sportiest of those. To enhance the lowered stance and the firmer handling, Saab mounted Michelin Pilot tires all around. Michelin tires are known for being the best for long wear, high speed and durability, but they, too, have a hard tread compound that loses its flexibility when it gets down around freezing. I’ve gotten so that whenever I’m driving a car that skids or spins too easily, I make a quiet prediction — “Must be Michelins” — and then I pull over, climb out and check. I haven’t been wrong often.
Both these Pilot (pronounced “pee-LOW” for Michelin’s French heritage) and the Yokohamas are among the best in dry or wet conditions. Hard and firm on a race track. But when it gets cold, they get harder and firmer and their stopping ability on icy or snowy roads goes south. On skis, you’re allowed to swerve abruptly to the side and stop; imagine instead doing the downhill bit on skis with the rule that you COULDN’T swerve to stop. That’s what hard-compound tires are like.
So don’t blame the cars, and don’t pass up the urge to buy the car of your dreams. If your dealer isn’t sharp enough to switch and supply better all-season or all-out winter tires, then buy your own, mount them on separate wheels, and just switch ’em in November and switch ’em back again in April. You’re not wasting anything, because both sets will last twice as long as if you left them on year-round.
TOYOTA CELICA GT-S
Go back a decade, and the most enjoyable and satisfying cars to drive in the world might have been the fleet of Japanese-named sporty coupes. The Honda Prelude, Toyota Celica, Mitsubishi Eclipse (and its Chrysler cronies, the Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon), Acura Integra, Mazda MX-6 and Subaru SVX all had produced the compact but sleek modern-era sporty-coupes.
New-era sports cars have regained a chunk of that segment, sport-utility vehicles have attracted astounding amounts of disposable income that might otherwise have gone toward sporty coupes, and almost all of that generation of sporty coupes have gotten bigger, fatter, more expensive, or disappeared. The Prelude has become more eccentric, and the Eclipse has come out all new.
But now for 2000, Toyota steps boldly to the front of the class with a Y2K version of the Celica — the seventh remake of that popular “2+2” sporty coupe. I always liked the Celica of the ’80s, the one that was offered with an all-wheel-drive option. But the new one is the best, by a mile.
The styling is love-it or hate-it, and it doesn’t dazzle me as much as the rest of the car. Toyota went along with its California design studio folks to come up with a very chiseled, angular wedge that is truly eye-catching, from every angle. The interior is every bit as attractive, with good ergonomics for the air-heat switches and the audio system, neatly styled orange-on-charcoal instruments that have attracted some criticism, but are certain to be easier to live with as time passes.
And there is the trendy idea of making the pedals of unpadded aluminum with holes drilled, which race-car guys used to for the sake of making a car lighter by every possible ounce. The Celica is comparatively light, weighing in at just over 2,500 pounds. That makes it lighter than everything else in its class, and 500 pounds lighter than some. That helps with the cornering agility and the braking, which are both exceptional. (It is less than agile and exceptional when you try to make the Yokohamas do anything on ice or snow, however.) And it also helps the performance.
Toyota is painfully aware that while its reputation has been bolstered by its mainstream Camry and worry-free operation, chief rival Honda has become the real-world’s technology leader with its extremely high-revving Integra GS-R, Acura NSX, Civic Si and now the new S2000 sports car.
Consider the Celica GT-S a breakthrough to Toyota’s high-tech age. The GT-S engine is an all-new 1.8-liter 4-cylinder, comparatively small by standards where the Eclipse has gone from 1.8 to 2.0 to a 3.0-liter V6. Toyota went to Yamaha, the superb motorcycle maker long known for innovative engine design technology. The two worked together to come up with a gem — an engine that I included in my recent list of my top 10 favorite engines in the world. It has dual-overhead camshafts operating 4 valves per cylinder, with an all-aluminum block and head, and a variable-valve-timing system similar to Honda’s, which has a secondary camshaft that comes in to supply a whole new arc of power.
In the Celica, that cam comes in at 6,000 RPMs, which is about where some competitors’ engines demand you shift. The Celica redline is an eyelash under 8,000, up there where only Honda has dared venture. The engine hits 180 horsepower at full scream, 7,600 RPMs, and delivers 133 foot-pounds of torque at 6,800. That’s more than the Integra GS-R, and almost as much as the Eclipse V6, which, I would guess, the Celica would outrun on any road course because of its big weight advantage.
The GT-S also has a 6-speed transmission that is slick to shift and brilliantly defined, with close ratios from 1-through-5, and then a large gap to sixth. That means you can scream on up to every shift point, and still cruise on the freeway in comparative silence. That also helped achieve just over 25 miles per gallon.
The other major impression of testing the Celica GT-S is the price tag. The base price is $22,000, and you can load it up with options and still be barely up to $24,000. That’s a lot of car for the money, and an enormous amount of driving pleasure.
SAAB 9-5 AERO
Under General Motors tutelage, Saab has tried to return to its quirky roots. Thankfully. Saab always has been attractive to somewhat eccentric but intellectual buyers. The key on the floor, the safety-cage construction two decades before most other maufacturers “invented” it, and upright seats and visibility that defied the cushy tendency toward fatigue. In short, Saabs reflect their aircraft heritage.
The 9000 model augmented the 900 as a more luxurious model, and it met with indifferent sales. So the new models are redone and renamed, with the smaller vehicle the 9-3 and the larger one the 9-5.
The Aero model is lowered, and has subtlely flared front spoiler and side lower molding panels, but you’d almost like to see it side-by-side with the standard 9-5 to be sure of the differences. The suspension has stiffer springs and bigger brakes, with larger, 17-inch wheels. The performance upgrade, to keep up with the better suspension, is the same-old 2.3-liter 4-cylinder engine Saab has been using for well over a decade, but it’s a substantial engine with chain-driven dual-overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder, with a turbocharger to inject more air-fuel mixture into the manifold.
The result is greater power than a 4-cylinder can normally achieve (unless it goes with the Honda/Toyota scheme of variable valve-timing). In the Aero version, the Mitsubishi-built turbocharger is cranked up to 20 pounds of pressure, which extracts 225 horses at 5,500 revs, and 243 foot-pounds of torque at only 1,900 RPMs.
The test car had a 4-speed automatic transmission, which detracted from its supposed sporty-car performance. Its acceleration was just OK until you got the revs up a bit, and it took longer to get them there with the automatic, and reports that the 9-5 Aero can go 0-60 in under 7 seconds sound pretty fictitious if you’ve only driven the auto. I was able to get 21.2 miles per gallon in combined city-freeway driving.
For comfort and cruising, the Aero lives up to traditional Saab standards. My only problem is that the 9-3 has aircraft-like ergonomics, while the 9-5 tries to simulate them. An example is the ignition key on the floor trick. The old 900, and the 9-3, have the ignition switch on the floor, between the bucket seats. After getting used to it, you could get in, blindfolded, drop your arm down to full extension, and chances are the key would be precisely aimed to fit into the ignition. In the 9-5, there is a console bulging up between the plush leather buckets. So the ignition is positioned on the “floor,” but the floor is a foot closer to your hand. So, yes, it meets the recollection of Saab zealots, but you have to grope for it at half-extended reach.
The base price of $40,000 and an as-tested tag of just over that, puts the 9-5 Aero up there with some serious all-weather sedans such as the Audi A6 and the Volvo S80. That’s steep company.
The biggest drawbacks are because of my feeling about Saab’s foul-weather tradition. Take the windshield wipers, which cleared the windshield perfectly if it was warm, but left large patches of untouched glass when it got cold. Guess what? Often, when it snows and you need wipers, it’s cold.
As for the hard tires, I had to switch the Aero in and out of its “W” (for winter) setting by pushbutton and work at it to back out of my own driveway after a 3-inch snowfall. And my driveway is so close to level you’d hardly detect a slope. So driving on an icy road was more slithering, and attempts to brake for a stop sign led to some serious chattering of the antilock braking system, and starting up automatically had your “TCS” (for traction-control system) light flashing madly at you from the tachometer.
For a car that is a traditional world-class winter driver, Saab needs to pay more attention to more cold-weather testing. And quit shipping cars you hope to sell to folks in California, Arizona and Florida to Minnesota in February.
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