Redesigned Taurus ready to challenge for sedan supremacy
[[[CUTLINES:
#1/ The redesigned 2000 Ford Taurus has a more sharply-chiseled look to the front and a more contoured sleekness in silhouette.
#2/ The rear has an aerodynamic appearance to the concave trunklid, and the sharply defined taillights.
#3/ Even on the inside, the instruments and switches are straightforward, leaving behind the dreaded “ovoid” look that wore out its welcome on the previous model. ]]]]]]
When Ford decided to redesign the Taurus for 2000, it wasn’t just another attempt to make just another pretty face.
For a decade or so, Taurus WAS Ford Motor Company, providing the largest-selling sedan in the U.S., and therefore the world, and giving Ford a primary challenger for marketplace supremacy to go along with the hugely successful F150 and Ranger pickups, and the Explorer and later SUV additions.
The look of the original Taurus was a U.S. breakthrough in aerodynamics, even if it was a pretty obvious copy of some European sedans such as the big Audi of that era. After its first major redesign, the Taurus retained its popularity, but U.S.-built Honda Accord and Toyota Camry bypassed it in the three-way race for No. 1.
So this is the major league team making a big trade to get the big slugger who can regain the pennant. The all-new Taurus has gotten more sophisticated in design, even while it has become more mainstream in appeal, a pretty good combination. It’s good, but whether it is good enough to unseat Accord, or the more recent No. 1, Camry, will take awhile to prove.
Overall, I like the new look. More of a dart-shaped nose, a sharper wedge to the slope of the hood, much more clearly defined angular lines to the headlights, and a sleeker, and sharper silhouette, accented with a large concave curve along the upper ridge of the body. I particularly like the view of the rear, which also has more sharply cut lines to the taillights, and with a concave rear where the trunklid meets the bumper that looks aerodynamic from any angle.
If there’s something missing, an abrupt departure from the previous Taurus, it is the dreaded oval shape that was repeated everywhere in the design of the predecessor — headlights, grille, windshield, rear window, taillights. But the most appealing departure is that the interior is justÂ…well, simple. It was the interior where the ovals, which Ford promoted widely as the ovoid look, was most pronounced and therefore most tiresome. I mean, you might like your car enough to stand outside it or walk around it and just gaze at it, but if you’re normal, you spend most of your car-time inside it, driving places.
The seats in the test car, a loaded SE, were covered with dark grey leather, soft and supple to feel, and with good support in the cushion and backrest. The steering wheel has a good, firm feel to it, with the familiar cruise-control switches for on-off on the left and set-resume on the right. And the instrument panel is just straightforward, round gauges for fuel, speed, tachometer and temperature. The center dash area is also simple, tapering from wide at the top to narrower at the bottom, with audio controls for the radio, cassette and vertical-in-the-console 6-disc changer above, and heat-air below.
That makes sense, since most of us change stations and tune the radio more than we adjust the temperature, especially when there is a good automatic climate-control setting. However, as much simplified as everything is, I would prefer more ergonomic study, as well as maybe a psychological study to see why designers feel the need to make the symmetry of several tiny identical buttons more important than easily discernible controls.
The floor-mounted gear lever for the 4-speed automatic is simple too. In fact, a bit too simple. Nowadays, almost every manufacturer gives you the chance to manually shift their automatics. Many give you a separate gate, such as Chrysler’s AutoStick, to ease that option, but most at least give you four separate slots to shift to, or a button to disengage the overdrive. With the Taurus, you get 1, D and D with a circle around it, for overdrive. That’s OK, because once used to it you can shift to normal “D,” but it still looks more like the indicator choices I recall from a friend’s 1951 Ford than for a new-age, high-tech car.
UNDER THE HOOD
Once you open the hood, however, you are talking strictly high-tech. The test car came equipped with the Duratec V6, which is Ford’s 3.0-liter V6 with dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder. That engine is complete evidence of why companies — most companies, that is — have changed over completely from pushrod design to overhead cams. The higher-revving capabilities and the mechanical design itself allow greater flexibility in gaining maximum power at high revs, refining it for strong punch off the line, and for optimum efficiency and fuel economy.
If you compare, in fact, you might note that in a competing Chevrolet Impala, where the top engine you can get is the 35-year-old pushrod 3.8-liter V6, it delivers a maximum of 200 horsepower at 5,200 RPMs. The Taurus Duratec churns out the same 200 horsepower at a higher-revving 5,750 RPMs, and that’s with almost a full liter less in displacement, 3.0 to 3.8. True, the Duratec doesn’t quite have the torque of the 3.8 GM engine, with 200 foot-pounds to the Chevy’s 225, but while torque is an important number for calculating low-end pulling power, you won’t complain about the launchability of the Taurus.
In fact, Ford has set up the gearing of the machine so that you have to be sure to ease away from stoplights or parking spaces to avoid lurching forward with neck-snapping force.
The door has the familiar four buttons for the power windows on the front edge of the door armrest, and where the door angles to meet the front pillar, the power mirror and door lock switches are mounted separately. There is a switch to disengage the traction-control, located in a see-if-you-can-find-me spot on the flat part of the molding below the instrument panel, to the right of the steering wheel.
One neat thing Ford started on the Navigator SUV is adjustable pedals. Everyone has adjustable seats, and most have adjustable steering wheels, but Ford has now adapted the adjustable pedals. If you have short arms, for example, you can move the seat close enough to find the perfect range for the steering wheel, and if that moves you too close to the pedals, you can move them forward to find optimum comfort.
As neat as that is, the switch to control it is on the left side of the seat cushion. Just ahead of it you have the power control to raise, lower and tilt the seat cushion, and just behind it you have the manual arm to adjust the rake of the seatback, so I found the adjustable pedals while thinking I was fiddling with some seat adjustment, and was surprised to feel the pedals moving away from me. Ergonomics, again.
DRUMBEAT TECHNOLOGY
The Taurus stresses safety, and has some impressive elements to back that up. Dual-stage airbags that regulate the urgency of the airbag deployment depending on the force of the impact, and seatbelt pretensioners, plus side airbags, along with the more rigid, tight-feeling body and chassis design, all aid in crash-survival.
Ford also trumpets the four-wheel, antilock brakes, but it is less bold in pointing out that the Taurus SE does not have four-wheel disc brakes. It has front discs and rear drums. That’s the way cars were in the 1970s, and as technology rose, they went to four-wheel disc brakes because, simply, they are better. More efficient. Stop you in a shorter distance and with less tendency to fade. So register that as a surprise on the new Taurus, and while the difference in stopping distance might be unnoticeable to the average driver, I’ll bet if you compare statistics you’ll find the new one might take a tad longer to bring to a halt.
As for other nitpicks, I got 23 miles per gallon, but I accelerated hard — purely for test purposes, you understand — even though I anticipated getting around 30, or even the EPA estimated 28 highway. Turns out, even in this day of technology, fuel gauges can be misleading. The Taurus was still at half a tank when I had gone 185 miles, making me realize that even getting close to twice that would be over 350 miles on the full tank. Next thing I knew, the gauge needle was surprisingly close to “E.” Then the little fuel-pump icon lit up, and I pulled into a gas station running on the final fumes. The trip odometer read 257. So you can go 185 on the top half of the gauge, but don’t expect to even get 100 miles once the gauge drops to half.
Could that be on purpose? Car-makers claim consumers don’t care about fuel economy these days, so maybe the intent is to give you a lot of miles on the top half so you’ll go to work and rave about how you must be getting great mileage with the new Taurus. If you feel like you’re getting good mileage, that’s good.
At a base price of $20,895, the Taurus SE is a lot of car for the. But on the SE option list, adding a moonroof, traction-control, adjustable pedals and side-impact airbags, and leather seating boosts the sticker to $25,045. That’s not bad, either, but somewhere on that option list I’d like to find four-wheel discs, foglights and a sportier shifter. Especially if I were to compare it to the Accord or Camry.
Mazda revises 626, MPV for 2000 model run
[[[cutlines…
#1/ The Mazda 626 has grown up through the years, both in increased room and in sophistication as a serious challenger to
Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
#2/ The sculptured rear look of the 626 is contoured to set its styling apart from a lot of “cookie cutter” lookalikes.
#3/ The MPV used to be as square as a breadbox, with rear-wheel drive; the all-new one is more van-like, with front-wheel drive.
#4/ Sometimes gadgetry gets in the way of ergonomics, as in the case of the column shift-lever, which blocks the view of the radio controls.
The Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are the top two automobiles purchased by consumers these days, and they seem to hold that claim despite some aggressive and excellent competitors. One of those competitors is the Mazda 626, which has been around since the start of the intermediate size market segment.
The Dodge Caravan continues to control the majority of the market for minivans, which aren’t so mini anymore, in case you haven’t noticed. There have been numerous challengers to that hold, including the Ford Windstar, Nissan Quest, Mercury Villager, the General Motors candidates from Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac, and the Honda Oddyssy. The Mazda MPV was never a challenger in that company, but Mazda has redesigned the entire MPV and has high hopes the new one will be more mainstream and yet still different enough to capture a larger share of the minivan segment.
I recently had the chance to test both the 2000 models of both those vehicles, and I found the 626 came through with dazzling success, while the MPV is vastly improved, but could use some more refining.
626 ES-V6 SEDAN
It was way back in 1979 that thre 626 first came to the United States, and it was a front-engine/rear-drive sedan or coupe in those days. It went to front-wheel-drive in 1983, and was a popular car through 1988, when Mazda opened a plant in Flat Rock, Mich., in which to build cars. In 1992, with Ford’s investment as part-owner, the plant became known as AutoAlliance International, and the 626 evolved to have over 75 percent domestic content, and a year later it became known as the first import-named car that was classified as a domestic.
It was 1998 when the most recent, fifth-generation 626 came out, and by then, the category had evolved into the most logical and most competitive segment of the marketplace — intermediate sized sedans that are big enough to haul four or five adults, and yet small enough to be economically efficient, and with agile maneuverability. With vehicles such as the Accord, Camry, Taurus, Lumina, Altima, Maxima, Legacy, Galant, Passat, Jetta, Stratus, etc., various manufacturers tried various ideas to carve niches in that segment. Some are more successful than others, and each has its following.
The 626 has always had some significant attributes, but it also has been one of the mysteries of the auto industry. Whether it was poor marketing, or being caught in between corporate planning as Ford increased its partnership, the 626 was always outsold by the Accord and Camry, although, feature-for-feature, it matches up very well with those best-sellers, and outdoes them in several aspects.
During the last makeover, Mazda, which has the larger and more luxurious Millenia and the smaller and hot-selling Protege, restyled the 626 until it more resembles the Millenia than the old 626. For 2000, some small-scale upgrades have fine-tuned the look. The test car was a darker grey than the more silvery color most companies use, and it has lighter grey leather seats. Larger headlights are styled to almost connect with what Mazda calls its “distinctive five-point grille,” which means it is a rectangle with the bottom flat surface pulled down to a fifth corner.
Distinctive? The five-point shape is virtually identical to the Accord, Camry, Acura 3.2 TL, and close to the Altima, Maxima, Galant and Subaru grille openings. Apparently some of the California design-studio guys must hang out at the same places.
The rear has been sculptured more, too, and while the car is attractive overall, those changes don’t necessarily improve the look in my opinion, and they aren’t significant in setting the 626 apart as much as they are in making it look more similar to some of its competitors. That may have been the intent, but the 626 retains some identifying differences, too.
The 626 comes four ways, as an LX and LX-V6, or as a top-end ES or ES-V6, with the difference being obvious. The ES has various upgrades in features, and both models either get a strong, 2.0-liter dual-overhead-camshaft four-cylinder or a stronger V6 that is only 2.5 liters but also has dual overhead cams and four-valve technology and kicks out 170 horsepower instead of the four’s 130.
The ES-V6 that I test-drove is the top of the top-of-the-line, with the leather that covers the comfortable front bucket seats and the very large rear bench seat, which provides the most rear seat room in its class. It has 16-inch alloy wheels, instead of the 15s on all other models. With 97.1 cubic feet of interior room, and a 14.2 cubic foot trunk, the 626 is at the top of the class.
It also had the standard 5-speed manual transmission, which Mazda always has offered and which also retains its sporty flavor. You can get 5-speed manuals in other cars in the class, although not in the Taurus or Lumina, and it clearly makes the comparatively small engines deliver the maximum driving pleasure.
The most significant change might be in stiffening the chassis, which is 24.4 percent stiffer than its predecessor, with front and rear suspension towers strengthened to also increase stiffness. Once sufficiently stiff, a platform’s handling can be made much more precise through the suspension tricks, and Mazda revised the suspension to improve steering and cornering, to keep the fun quotient high, as it always has been in the 626. With the right engineering, firmer suspension can also be made more comfortable, and refined steering gear and stronger stabililzer bars front and rear helps accomplish both ends of that challenge.
From a driving perspective, the seat adjustments are curious. You can move the seat cushion up, down, tilted and fore and aft by a power switch, and you can move the backrest rake by a manual lever, but there is no switch to increase the lower-back bolstering. However, I found that by moving the seat cushion around, you can alter where your back meets the backrest and get the proper feel.
I thought the restyling caused the hood to be a bit longer, and while not obtrusive, it is in your line of vision more than the preceding model, which afforded a bit more downward visibility out the front.
Safety touches included dual airbags that are depowered so as not to blow you aways with full force on a moderate impact, andyou can get side airbags that come out of the upper seat back. Optional antilock brakes and traction control round out the total package.
The base price of the 626 ES-V6 is $22,445, but it comes pretty loaded, with such features as four-wheel disc brakes and a powerful Bose audio system, power moonroof, cruise control and remote trunk and fuel door switches standard. The test car added dual side airbags, antilock brakes and traction control, plus a 6-disc changer in the dash, where you feed discs in one at a time and they are stowed, without having to deal with those goofy little plastic trays.
That raises the price to $24,070, but that still is not bad for all that the car delivers. It also maintains one of my favorite Mazda features, which has never been copied by competitors, and that is the “swing” vent on the center dash panel. Push a button, and the air or heat is sent swaying back and forth with the vent oscillating to help move the air.
MPV VAN
Mazda first tried to be different when it brought out the MPV in the 1989 model year. Chrysler owned the minivan market, so having something different might have worked. The original MPV was, however, as square as a breadbox, and while it seemed intriguing, it was, basically, a breadbox on wheels. Worse yet, for Up North buyers, it was front-engine/rear-drive, which meant that it was square, but it could become a spinning square if you made the wrong move on ice. Mazda countered by offering four-wheel-drive, which helped immeasurably.
But it still was a breadbox, and with a third row of seats offered, you could choose whether you wanted to haul extra people or luggage, but there simply wasn’t room enough for both.
For 2000, the MPV has, indeed, capitulated to the expanding minivan movement. Sure, SUV owners buy trendy SUVs because they say they don’t want the same-old minivan, but minivans make a lot more sense from the standpoint of simply hauling people, because you can get them with economical performance. Some may have scoffed at that before gasoline went to $1.55, but now that it’s headed toward $2, the scoffing may go away.
The problem Mazda faces is that just about every imaginable feature and option and trick has been done on minivans, mostly by Chrysler Corporation, which sells 40 percent of all minivans, but more recently by Ford and General Motors. Most recently, the two biggest new challengers for minivan market share might be the Toyota Sienna and the Honda Oddyssy, both of which have lively, overhead-cam engines and are packed with features.
The MPV has a comparatively small 2.5-liter V6, with dual overhead-cams and 170 horsepower. That’s enough to get it up there and stay up at highway speed with mileage estimates of 21 city and 27 highway — try that with your SUV — although the little engine downshifts liberally when you want instant power. It does have front-wheel-drive now, which is a requisite in Up North winters.
Built on an all-new platform, the MPV no longer is a breadbox on wheels, and no longer is it, arguably, the ugliest of ducklings. It now is a stylish, well-fortified, front-wheel-drive minivan. It has four sliding side doors, capitalizing on the latest trend. These sliding side doors also have power windows, which is one-up on the competition.
The seating arrangement also copies the best from the competitors. The second-row buckets can be shifted in what Mazda calls “slide-by-side,” which means you can put the buckets together, or separate, or take them out. And the rear bench seat copies one of the Oddyssy’s unique features. It can be tmbled flat into the floor, and it also can be flipped over to face the rear. The configuration also gives the MPV a lot of stowage space behind the seats, when they’re all upright and in use, and Mazda has put in enough cupholders to outnumber occupants. By being last to the aging minivan show, at least Mazda chose its features wisely to incorporate some of the best.
The MPV also copies the Nissan Quest (and Mercury Villager) and some others by putting the gear lever on the steering column. Mazda needs to go back to Honda to study ergonomics a little better. When you put the shift lever in drive, it sticks out horizontally just right so the driver can’t see the left half of the audio controls. That’s OK if you memorize them by feel, or if you just use the “4-5-6” settings for the radio, and don’t want to adjust the CD changer, but it’s simply not necessary from a design standpoint. You don’t want to give the driver distractions.
The base price of the MPV is $25,550, with the 180-watt, 9-speaker audio system, front and rear air conditioning, leather 7-passenger seating, power windows and all the sliding doors standard. Adding the in-dash 6-disc changer to the mix, plus the power moonroof and the four-seasons package with larger windshield washer tdank, an oil cooler, larger radiator, hevier battery and rear defogger and an additional cooling fan, boosts it to $27,730.
Not bad, for all you get. The new MPV is vastly superior to the old one, as it transcends from being a square breadbox to a sleek, front-wheel-drive breadbox. If it needs a bit more ergonomic refinement, and if a bit more power will help it be less buffetted when passing a semi, I’m sure Mazda will be quick to refine it. But it’s a very competitive marketplace, and time will tell if there is still time to cut in for someone coming late to the minivan party.
Chrysler cruises into unique niche with 2001 PT Cruiser
[[[cutlines:
1/ The tailgate tray of the new Chrysler PT Cruiser aids the beach party setting at Del Mar, Calif., near San Diego.
2/ The PT Cruiser is shorter than a compact car but with nearly as much interior room as a minivan or SUV, and it is priced from $16,000-$20,000.
3/ A youthful Bryan Nesbitt described his role as chief designer of the PT Cruiser, which has a unique future/retro style and versatility to satisfy families that can afford only one car.
4/ Seating for five is comfortable, easy to access through wide-opening doors, and can be altered 26 different fold-down, tilt-up and removable alternatives. ]]]]]]]]]
Despite having seen it at auto shows and written about it, the Chrysler PT Cruiser still represented fantasyland. Until this week. Now I have driven the PT Cruiser. It not only is real, it is real-world — a mainstream vehicle that touches all the bases for a society that wants cars, trucks and/or multi-purpose vehicles.
* Here’s what the PT Cruiser is: family-oriented with roomy comfort for five; government-agency categorized as a car, a truck and/or a multi-purpose vehicle; several inches shorter than a Dodge Neon, Honda Civic or Ford Focus, but with far more interior space than any of those; certain to stop traffic and gather a crowd with a uniquely combined retro and futuristic look; capable of plenty of performance while delivering over 25 miles per gallon; and, best of all, it costs $16,000 in base form,$20,000 in the loaded-up, top-of-the-line version.
* Here’s what the PT Cruiser ISN’T: It is not a retro-hot-rod, although some think it resembles one. It is not a race car but enormous after-market attention is anticipated, and a possible GT version is already in concept form. It is not a Neon, nor does it share any major components, including chassis platform panels. It is not a minivan or an SUV, but it offers all the versatility of those vehicles except brute-strength towing capability, at a fraction of the expense.
Because it is compared to the Neon in size, and Chrysler started out hoping to use the basic Neon components, the assumption is that they share platforms, but as the project evolved, fewer and fewer parts were shared until the Cruiser wound up with a unique platform, rigidly reinforced and with a patented rear suspension system. The front suspension architecture is the same as Neon’s, but even that has been built of different, higher grade materials. About the only thing the Cruiser shares with Neon is a bagfull of fasteners and switchgear.
The Cruiser will be built at DaimlerChrysler’s plant in Toluca, Mexico, which can make a maximum of 185,000 vehicles a year. It will be officially launched in about a month, and it will be exported in both left and right side steering wheel configuration to 40 countries.
If that all sounds like expecting too much from one vehicle, there’s more. The PT Cruiser joins a tiny segment of the market capable of evoking a passionate response from everybody, love or hate. The Volkswagen New Beetle is one of those, the new Audi TT Coupe is another,maybe even the new Ford Focus. The trait is the ability to draw emotional reactions from the mainstream, without ever being mainstream.
In addition, while it may be pure good luck, the Cruiser comes out with good fuel economy potential just as gasoline prices rise to disturbing levels. The “don’t-care” attitude about 11-mpg SUVs changes quickly when it costs $40 to fill a tank. By coincidence, during the introduction in San Diego, gasoline prices went over $2, hitting $2.03 for premium and $1.99 for regular. It’s coming our way, so Chrysler’s timing couldn’t be more perfect.
As the 2001 model year arrives, we will be encountering dozens of fabulous vehicles, but right now, I’d bet the farm that next January, we will be calling the PT Cruiser the 2001 International car of the year.
DIFFERENT BY DESIGN
If you’ve seen it, even in pictures, your reaction might be: “What the heck is it?” Imagine a minivan combined with a Prowler. Impossible? Not when you’ve checked out the PT Cruiser, with a Prowler-inspired nose and the square-back room and utility of a minivan.
The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration is also confused. The Cruiser has the exterior length of a compact car, but 120.2 cubic feet of interior room, which is in the big-car category. It is classified as a car for emissions rules, as a multipurpose vehicle for safety, and as a truck for corporate average fuel economy. It works as a truck because all the seats can go down or be pulled to create a flat surface, and Chrysler can smile because its cars are well within the EPA car limit, so classifying the Cruiser as a truck for CAFE allows it to be combined with the big-engined pickups to give more leeway to less efficient gas-mileage engines.
Chrysler set up camp in San Diego and is bringing in waves of international automotive journalists for the introductory test-drive. It was the perfect location at which to prove the Cruiser fits in perfectly on the beach, on the freeway, in city or residential traffic, or on nearby twisty mountain roads.
Chrysler, more than any other manufacturer, brings its fantasies to life. This one began life by evolving from three concept cars, the Expresso to the Pronto and then to something called the PT Cruizer — with a “z.” That Cruizer dazzled everybody when it was first displayed a year ago at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit two years ago. Designer Bryan Nesbitt, who may be 30 but looks younger than that, was given the challenge.
“Chrysler is always looking at ways to bring out cars that are different, that might appeal to emotions,” said Nesbitt. “We call the Cruiser the duffel-bag concept, because it can become anything you want it to be. When I was designing this, there was no reason for car-buyers in this country to aspire to a smaller vehicle; bigger was better because gas was cheap, and there is a lot of great stuff out there, like huge SUVs, big garages, huge houses. Driving a small car meant you were obviously aspiring to something else. That’s ridiculous. A consumer should be able to get some style and passion in a reasonably sized vehicle for a reasonable price.
“My first sketches were decidedly hot-rod,” said Nesbitt, acknowledging that the finished product will appeal to those who like hot rods and street rods, but it has been defined into something far beyond that.
Nesbitt’s design wound up creating a vehicle that is small in length only. Because it is taller, he designed the seats for a higher view outward, and that created the benefit of sitting more upright, particularly when compared to the lay-down approach of sports cars such as the Viper or Corvette. That allowed the legs of all occupants to be more vertical than horizontal also, and they could be given more comfort room in less space.
Sure enough, the Cruiser will seat five in roomy comfort with all the seats in place, or 4-3-2 or 1 as you fold the seats into various of 26 configurations. The rear bench folds forward perfectly flat, rotates forward from there into a vertical position for hauling long things, or can be popped out, all in 65-35 proportions.
“If you could only have one vehicle, a hatchback is the smartest way to package the most versatility into it,” Nesbitt said. “The stance of the vehicle also was very important because it communicates the attitude of the car. The stance of the PT Cruiser is sort of like a bulldog, because there is very little overhang, so you have a long, stable stance, even though it is tall.
“When we were finished, we hadn’t compromised function to fashion, or fashion to function.”
COOL, MORE THAN HOT
Chrysler prefers “heritage” to retro, but because of the 40s-style retro street-rod influence, I anticipated the car would be a little harsh and pretty hot. It is neither.
It is powered by a 2.4-liter engine, a contemporary Chrysler motor that began life for use as the base four-cylinder in the Stratus, Cirrus and minivans about five years ago. In PT Cruiser form, it has dual-overhead camshafts with four valves per cylinder, and it produces 150 horsepower at 5,500 RPMs and 162 foot-pounds of torque at 4,000 revs. It has two counter-balancing shafts that spin opposite of the crankshaft to neutralize the harmonic vibration common to all in-line fours.
Now, I love fast cars that accelerate like dragsters and corner like Formula 1 cars, and I would gladly compromise cushioned comfort for the sake of such handling. But there are people buying cars who are at the other end of the scale, too, wanting a softer, cushioned ride and don’t care about precise handling. The majority of consumers is somewhere between the two extremes, and that is precisely where the PT Cruiser is parked.
The Cruiser frame is rigid enough to focus on safety, and allows great potential for firm, stiff handling, but the suspension is compliant enough to be comfortable. The tallish body leans a bit on hard cornering, but not much, so handling is very good without compromising comfort. The front suspension has a stabilizer bar for support and the rear has two stabilizer bars linked in unique enough fashion that Chrysler patented it.
The engine has good power, and while I was first disappointed there wasn’t more mid-range punch with the 5-speed manual downshifted to third, it was still adequate. The 4-speed automatic, meanwhile, felt snappier in some situations because a hard stomp on the gas produced a kickdown to second gear for passing. No AutoStick is available because Chrysler only offers that on cars that don’t offer 5-speeds, but the AutoStick might be the perfect compromise for the Cruiser.
If it is not as hot as I expected, it is still, as they say, way cool. I predict after-market tuners are going to go bananas with stiffer suspension parts and hotter-engine upgrades, and Chrysler can sit back, and take note, and possibly even incorporate some of the better ideas for a GT Cruiser version in a year or two. There already is a concept GT Cruiser making the rounds of auto shows, although Chrysler executives won’t say anything about its chances of being produced.
Seated tall in the driver’s seat, you get the same commanding view of the road as SUV, pickup truck or minivan drivers. The seats are comfortable, and when I suggested they could use more lumbar support, a Chrysler factory guy said a manual lumbar adjustment is coming in late summer. Safety is enhanced by the reinforced floor panels, oversized brakes with optional 4-wheel discs, antilock and traction control, and airbags that include optional side-protection airbags.
Rear seat comfort is good, and there is quite a bit of storage space behind the back seat, with a neat horizontal tray that can serve to prevent stowed stuff from being seen from the outside, or can be raised and bolstered to hold 100 pounds of food at the tailgate party, or clicked in as a lower table.
Ergonomics are good, although I didn’t like the power window switches high in the middle of the center panel rather than on the doors, but that’s something an owner would get used to in about 10 minutes. Less easy to accept are the rear power window switches, located behind the center console where a driver needs some contortions to reach them, and impossible to miss for the flailing feet of young kids in the back seat.
THE PUBLIC VIEW
Chrysler global brand executive Jay Kuhnie said: “There really isn’t a demographic profile for this car.” Our one-day experiences verified that. We got gawks from passers-by and pedestrians, and questions from everybody who could get close enough to be heard.
Cruising (so to speak) on the San Diego freeway, we got repeated waves and thumbs-up signals from drivers probably more accustomed to different hand gestures in traffic. A few blocks after exiting, I noticed in my rearview mirror a car zigzagging through traffic to catch us. It was someone in a New Beetle — the car the public has surrounded to ask about for the last two years — trying to overtake us to get a closer look.
After driving over some mountain roads, we pulled up to shoot photos along the Pacific Ocean as three kids hauling surfboard stuff to the parking lot paused to ask about the car. We explained what it was, then asked them what they thought about it. The youngest of the three, probably 10 or 12, said the thing he liked best about the PT Cruiser was: “It looks so futuristic.”
There you have it. Folks over-40 will like it for being retro, 20-40 types will like it for being uniquely versatile, teenagers will love it for being cool, and younger kids — for whom retro might be last year’s top 10 tunes — like it because it’s futuristic.
The PT Cruiser fits every niche.
New laws could make cars, huge SUVs, more compatible
The new Ford F150 Lariat SuperCrew is the latest piece of artillery in the ongoing competitive battle for the enormously successful SUV/truck market segment.
The Chevrolet Trailblazer is not all that new, but more like the latest spinoff of a tried and true Sport Utility Vehicle with some fancy trim.
Both of these vehicles are popular examples of the ever-expanding SUV/truck market, which is by far the most profitable segment that Ford or Chevrolet ever could have imagined. There are changes coming, however, and it will be interesting to pay attention to the alterations being made, as well as the price of gasoline at the pumps, which also could affect the market.
The Lariat F150 is Ford’s top-selling, full-sized pickup truck — the largest selling single vehicle in the world — and the SuperCrew means it has now evolved into a specialized vehicle that has four full front-opening doors, with a pickup box on behind. Think of it as two-thirds of an SUV and one-third of a pickup truck. That makes it extremely interesting, because it does all the work of a 4×4 pickup truck, but also can haul five or six people at the same time.
The Lariat F150 SuperCrew lists for a base price of $31,125, and as tested, with the 5.4-liter V8, the power moonroof, the trailer-towing package, sliding rear window, six-disc changer, limited slip and skid plates, the price blossoms out at $34,520.
Presumably, customers are lining up to plunk down their money. Or, more realistically, their banks’ money.
The Chevy Trailblazer is the good ol’ Blazer, decked out in “Trailblazer décor,” which means summit white paint with gold accent lines. It is the familiar Blazer, which also exists in other forms, such as the GMC Jimmy, the Oldsmobile Bravada and the GMC Envoy.
The Trailblazer is attractive, and comes pretty loaded, with a 4.3-liter V6, for a base price of $31,470. Add enhanced audio, locking rear differential, heated driver seat, trailer package, underbody shield, and remote radio controls on the steering wheel, the sticker on the test vehicle bloomed to $33,412.
Ford seems to be on the cutting edge of new vehicles with the latest technology, and General Motors seems determined to continue building the same vehicles, capitalizing on their familiarity and consistent popularity, and offsets a reluctance to go to higher-tech engines with the simple rationale of making much more profit by continuing to turn out the old engines in updated form.
Whether you like SUVs or hate ’em, there are more valid reasons for Up North folks to own SUVs, for trailering, traveling to distant places over ice-covered roads, and taking full advantage of the wilderness virtues of our area.
But those who simply substitute SUVs and trucks for duties that normal cars could handle don’t have the same excuse.
ARGUMENT INTENSIFIES
The Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) controversy is about evenly divided.
There are those who love their SUVs, enjoy the feeling of sitting up high and powerful in their SUVs, and feel SUVs are the safest and most secure places on the road; then there are those who don’t have SUVs, who live in fear of being crushed by SUVs, and whose safety is threatened by being unable to see around the string of SUVs and pickup trucks ahead on the road.
The SUV types around the country use their big, powerful vehicles the way simpler folks used station wagons and/or minivans in years gone by, to go to the shopping mall or grocery store, or to haul the kids to hockey practice.
The anti-SUV types say those who could get by just as easily with smaller-than-SUVs are irresponsible, using up more than their fair share of fuel as well as roadways.
The SUV owners say they don’t care about 11 miles per gallon, because their families are safer and more secure in trucks, which are bigger and heftier than cars or minivans, and they criticize those without SUVs as being irresponsible for putting their families in lighter vehicles.
Funny, though, how gasoline prices creeping up toward $2 a gallon can change a lot of attitudes about fuel economy.
Both sides have a point, and those who take one extreme and chastise the other are simply missing a chunk of logic. A good friend of mine has a radio show in the Twin Cities, and you can hear it Up North nowadays, too. He is adamant about how everybody should be in SUVs and nobody should even criticize SUV owners.
So let’s compare some facts. True, if two vehicles collide, you generally are safer, all other factors being equal, if you are in the larger of the two. Call it logic, common sense, or the laws of physics. There are some extenuating circumstances, however. Some SUVs are much safer by design, and others are huge, but not built with safety at the forefront.
Plus, SUVs are heavier, tippier, harder to turn and maneuver, and therefore less likely to avoid an accident than smaller and more agile cars.
The problem comes when an SUV or a truck hits a normal sized car. Some cars handle impacts better than others, some even better than certain SUVs. But generally, the heavier vehicle wins. Just like a heavyweight boxer fighting a lightweight. One punch from the heavyweight, boom!
The argument falls apart, however, when you carry it to extremes. If heavy is better, then isn’t heavier-still better yet? Should we all be driving Sherman tanks, and thrashing around as we crush huge SUVs beneath our tracks and defending the move because we’re safe inside our tanks?
Of course not. The perception of safety is because you feel as though you’re in a fortress, but some trucks have only their heft going for them, and they lack the crashworthy crumple-zone front and rear sections for energy absorbing that most cars have. On top of that, they are tippy. You don’t need a test to know that any sudden swerve one way and back the other can throw an SUV into a hard-to-control attitude that any car would handle easily.
That tippiness, and an over-rated reputation for safety, are exposed in studies that show while SUV occupants survive well in crashes with cars, the overall fatality rate in SUVs is no better than in cars. Think about that. The death rate is approximately the same for car and SUV occupants, even though car occupants lose decisively in run-ins with SUVs.
REAL-WORLD SAFETY
It may come as a shock to uninformed consumers, and to radio show guys, that much of the domestic auto industry is run by government agencies which make rules, and they in turn are at least heavily influenced by lobbyists from the auto companies. That is why SUVs and trucks have been exempt from the same strict pollution and fuel-economy rules as cars, a good rule back when cars were for hauling people and trucks were for work, but an absurd rule when 90 percent of SUV/trucks are bought and used by families for commuting and other car-replacement tasks.
Amazingly, the auto industry has held out for years that SUVs and trucks do not pose any extra danger to the cars they collide with. Despite apologists and SUV/truck owners and sales forces, the simple facts are that it takes longer to stop a heavier vehicle, and the scare tactics used to promote heavier vehicles in the name of safety has arguably been of questionable ethics.
Suddenly, in the past week, General Motors has conceded that yes, its SUVs indeed might inflict extra damage and threat to car-drivers in accidents. That came right after a government study showed that the tall design of SUVs had caused 1,000 fatalities annually among folks in cars that were in crashes with SUVs.
So, starting with 2002, General Motors will install steel rails two inches lower and in the underbodies of SUVs to reduce the chance of the SUV going up and over its automobile victim. DaimlerChrysler is making similar changes to the Dodge Durango for 2002 as well. Other manufacturers also are planning running changes.
Ford, which came out with the enormous Excursion a year ago, designed the Excursion to have a low bar from its inception, with the purpose of inflicting less damage on cars.
New truck and SUV designs will copy that trend, and the logic of redesigns will be to simply mount that heaviest frame and suspension components lower, to further add to the preventive crash-safety.
Some theories are that such moves will lower SUVs from their current tall stances, which will accomplish two things — providing run-over barriers and lowering the center of gravity to make the trucks and SUVs less tippy. Lowering the ride height can be offset by adjustable suspensions, which could raise the vehicle if — and when — it is taken off-road.
While they’re at it, there is one more law I’d like to see passed to ease the conflict between cars and SUV/trucks. How about standardizing headlight height? If a car’s headlights are, say, 30 inches off the ground, and the rear window is 40 inches off the ground, why should trucks be allowed to have their headlights so high they shine blinding beams into your rear window, and mirror, at stoplights? Make the allowable headlight height the same for trucks as for cars. It won’t affect the visibility from the trucks, because lower light beams should illuminate more of the road ahead.
Who knows? Maybe we can still find a way that cars, trucks and SUVs can be compatible, after all. Now, about improving that 11 mile-per-gallon figure…
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.
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