First major revision makes 2001 Aurora a better selection
2001 Oldsmobile Aurora
LIKES:
Entirely new for 2001, the Aurora is leaner and more compact but retains the look of the original model.
Smooth power for acceleration and cruising, even with the new and smaller 3.5-liter V6, which is the perfect alternative to the more powerful V8, and delivers excellent fuel economy.
Shorter by 6 inches than its predecessor, the Aurora is lighter and more agile, with suspension refinements giving it a sportier feel.
The standard 4.0-liter Aurora V8 and the newly-available 3.5 V6, both with dual-overhead-camshafts, makes Aurora the most-technically-advanced sedan in the General Motors stable.
Totally revised body structure improves rigidity and safety.
The leather interior is accented with walnut trim — REAL walnut, thank you.
Instrumentation and other interior amenities are well-designed and well-placed, and traces of class include understated chrome rings around the gauges.
DISLIKES:
The cost of making the heavy Aurora lighter and more compact is that rear seat headroom and legroom are best if you are under 6-feet tall, although shoulder and hip room are improved.
Steering feel seemed very light — perhaps too light at cruising speed — which may be a combination of the new size, the new suspension, and the V6 instead of the heavier V8.
With competition being fierce at the entry-luxury level, the Aurora is also a lot of money for the car at $31,240, even though breaking down the elements proves the Aurora offers a lot of car for the money.
Six years ago, Oldsmobile sales were sagging enough that factions in the General Motors hierarchy seriously considered eliminating the entire line. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick and Cadillac could easily pick up the slack from the Olds brand, which had always been known as perhaps the highest of high-tech arms of GM.
Cooler heads prevailed, and GM went the other direction with Oldsmobile, going so far as to let Olds designers come up with an entirely new near-luxury sedan, called the Aurora. It was very high-tech for its day, in both design and engineering. The most advanced engine in the GM line was the Cadillac NorthStar V8, and Olds wanted it for the Aurora. Cadillac allowed Olds to use the engine, but only if it would reduce its displacement from 4.6 to 4.0 liters, assuring that Seville buyers wouldn’t find themselves blown off the road by Auroras.
No problem, as long as the new engine had the same dual-overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, and it did. After six years, the evolution of the Aurora look affected new models from around GM. The new Seville, in fact, is built on the Aurora chassis, as is the new Pontiac Bonneville. At Olds, including the compact Alero, and the midsize Intrigue took on a strong family resemblance to the Aurora. In fact, the Intrigue, newly designed two years ago, looked like a replica of the Aurora, which should have been a tip.
For 2001, Olds has already introduced an all-new Aurora, and it is an impressive job of refreshing the old design and improving on it, without losing the family trademark design.
My biggest complaints with the original Aurora was that GM made it too heavy. In the days when bigger and heftier meant better to U.S. manufacturers, that might have been fine. But here was a new-wave sedan in styling, and in my opinion it could have better taken on the challenges from Lexus, Acura, BMW, Audi and Mercedes by being lighter, leaner and more agile — plus, that 4.0 V8 would have been an impressive sizzler in a sportier setting.
Wonder of wonders, the 2001 Aurora has been built on an entirely new platform and restyles, and it is lighter, leaner and more agile.
My eagerness to test-drive the new Aurora in May came from the realization that the Aurora is the basis for the Indy Racing League’s formulated engines in the Indianapolis 500, although that presumed lower-budget operation this year lowered the limits from 4.0 to 3.5 liters. That means engine builders have to use a downsized version of the 4.0 V8.
As luck would have it, the Aurora that was sent to me last week offers the newest wrinkle from Olds — the 3.5-liter V6. Now, this is no ordinary V6, but GM’s latest trick engine, building a V6 as a chip off the old block, with that block being the NorthStar V8 and the Aurora derivative. When GM allowed the 3.5 V6 to be built, it was intended to be the engine of the future, where the aging 3800 V6 and others, such as the 3.1 and 3.4, still dwelled. But when it was finished, it cost more to build and GM can continue to make the older engines inexpensively, so the 3.5 V6 was appropriated only to Oldsmobile, for use in the Intrigue.
Other GM sedans, such as the Grand Prix, Impala, and Century, got all new high-tech bodies along with the Intrigue, but only Olds got to use the new, trick engine. For 2001, the Aurora gets to use it, too.
Look, feel of luxury
There are different perceptions of luxury, and they’ve changed in recent years. When we in the U.S. thought luxury cars had to be big, soft, squishy, powerful and not economical barges, there were some who appreciated the European style of Mercedes, BMW and Audi, which was to say understated, without the heft, softness, chrome and inefficiency. Those European cars were so simple and blah, but it proved to be a lasting look and feel that grew on their owners. The garish look got old, the true class of less ostentatious cars made them look and feel better the longer you owned them.
And performance was the key, with great power coupled with handling ability that made such luxury sedans corner as well as our high-performance coupes. Better, maybe. So we’re catching up. The best U.S. luxury cars now have risen in stature to challenge those European and the top Japanese vehicles (which were first to copy the Europeans).
The 2001 Aurora will fit in very well with that appeal. One of the most impressive things about the Aurora is that it has the look of a refined luxury sedan, and the feel as you slip behind the wheel. While the exterior is six inches shorter than the original long, wedgy Aurora, the interior room seems about the same. If legroom in the rear is lessened, it is only slight, and hip and shoulder room is actually increased. Same with the trunk, which is a full cubic foot smaller, but has a low liftover design that makes it much more accessible.
Behind the wheel, though, is best. The bucket seats are supportive and comfortable, coated with leather. The steering wheel feels good in your hands, and you look at the gauges and you see they are tastefully circled by slim chrome rings, including the tachometer, which redlines at 6,500 RPMs. A readout panel on the top edge of the center dashboard is for the computer, which provides fuel economy, gallons used, oil pressure, remaining life span of the oil before the next change, and elapsed time for trip settings. By being at the top of the dash, it is quickly read with minimal glances away from the road.
In the middle of the center dash panel is the air-heat controls, which are neat. I’m not sure I like the tiny little icons for where the airflow should be directed, although I got used to turning the knob to light up the appropriate one after only a few tries. The audio controls are low on that center dash, and it is an impressive system, with CD player and cassette in addition to AM-FM radio. It is open to debate which sets of controls should be located where; those that put the radio above the heat-air say that drivers tune the audio system much more often than they change air-heat settings.
Among the most impressive touches to set the Aurora apart from the mundane is a lot of wood trim, on the doors, console and center dash area. It is, however, real walnut — very impressive in this era of phony plastic wood. I’m one of those purists who insists that if you’re going to put wood accents in my car, it had better be real wood, no matter how real the plastic looks.
Step on the gas
When I noticed on the delivery sheet that the test Aurora had the V6, I was disappointed, because I had planned to compare the street version 4.0 V8 with the Indy Car race engine. However, past experiences with the 3.5-liter V6 should have allayed my feeling. And if that didn’t, stepping on the gas and zipping through a tankful of fuel certainly did.
The 4.0 V8 has an impressive 250 horsepower at 5,600 RPMs, and 260 foot-pounds of torque at 4,400. The 3.5 V6, though, has an equally impressive 215 horsepower at 5,600 revs, and 234 foot-pounds of torque at 4,400. With coil-at-plug ignition and extended-life sparkplugs, the engines won’t need anything but oil and oil filter changes for 100,000 miles.
The engine uses a log of aluminum and magnesium to both lighten and strengthen vital parts, and the 4.0 V8 got the same treatment for 2001. In V8 form, the 2001 Aurora is 165 pounds lighter than the 2000 model; with the 3.5 V6, the Aurora is 285 pounds lighter than the previous, V8-only model.
The bottom line, after all the technical stuff is laid out about the better structural rigidity, lighter-but-stronger chassis, revised suspension, and lighter high-output engines, is that the Aurora will accelerate and handle with surprising agility. The V6 version’s advantage in weight makes it much sportier than the old model, although I think Olds should moderate the Magnasteer’s speed-sensitive steering feel to take away some of the light-as-a-feather twitchiness as speed increases.
Gas mileage was good, and I thought at first it might be exceptional, because the tank is big enough that I got over 385 miles. A nice feature is that it takes regular gas, and while the EPA fuel economy estimates are 19 city and 28 highway, I got 21 in town, 25.5 on the freeway and a conglomerate 24.8 for a tankful that was used in combination.
Front and side airbags protect front occupants, four-wheel disc brakes with antilock help more, and the four-wheel independent suspension has automatic load-leveling. The 16-inch wheels undoubtedly contribute to the good handling manners, and there is a tire inflation monitor that alerts you if any tire gets low.
The first Aurora was very good, and I think the 2001 represents an impressive first upgrade. It would be even better if a manual transmission were offered instead of the mandatory 4-speed automatic. But, hey, this is GM we’re talking about. We’ll settle for the 2001 Aurora as is, and hope that it leads the way for other GM sedans.
‘S4’ performance package turns Audi A4 into silken rocket
2000 AUDI S4
LIKES:
“S” stands for “screamer” with 2.7 twin-turbo V6 inserted into popular A4.
Audi’s trademark quattro all-wheel-drive system enhances performance with all-weather sizzle.
Subtlety is key, as the heart of a wolf roars without disfiguring the sheepskin coat.
Sudden power distributed by 6-speed manual or standard 5-speed Tiptronic.
Unique seats, instruments provide perfect finishing touch to S4 revisions.
Special wheels, tires, suspension set S4 apart from all other Audis — and competitors’ sedans.
Tiny little “S4” badges on grille and rear decklid, plus serious headlights and foglights are only external tip that this is something special.
Warranty covers all maintenance for first three years or 50,000 miles.
DISLIKES:
Price is stiff, at $40,000, but that may be reasonable for absolute pinnacle of sports sedans.
Rear seat room is adequate, but not roomy for passengers 6-feet or taller.
High-performance tires stick to wet or dry pavement, but would be scary on ice, so you’ll need to have top winter tires as well.
My first exposure to the 2000 model year Audi S4 was out in California, at a close-off roadway on the grounds of Laguna Seca race track near Monterey. My driving partner and I were tipped off by an Audi guy to take the car down and back on this curvy road for the best test of this particular car.
After sitting in the passenger seat on the short burst outbound, I got behind the wheel for the brief return. I hit the gas and we launched, with exhilarating swiftness. I hit second and ran the S4 up to its redline. I snapped the 6-speed manual shifter into third, and glanced at the tach as it neared redline. When the needle got there, I also stole a glance at the speedometer. It said 130 miles per hour. And we were in third gear, with a 6-speed!
This tale requires one of those “don’t try this on the highway” disclaimers, which, of course, is valid. If you’re not on an autobahn or a race course, you don’t want to be running any car to those speeds. It does, however, make you wonder exactly how fast an S4 might go in German trim on an uncongested autobahn.
For the entire decade of the 1990s, Audi was in “comeback” mode, striving to recover its integrity, to say nothing of its profit-margin, after damaging — and eventually disproven — publicity on national network television about unintended acceleration.
Here we are in a new decade, to say nothing of a new century, and Audi, its comeback completed, is setting out to establish itself in “performance” mode with an assortment of healthy helpings of “intended” acceleration.
One of those examples is that this weekend, Audi has a couple of cars entered in the 24 Hours of LeMans, and it would not be surprising to see the German marque go the distance and win the overall title among the world’s most performance-oriented manufacturers.
Another of those examples is the recent booming success of the introduction of the TT Coupe and Roadster, Audi’s first serious attempt at building a world-class sports car.
But one of the most dazzling bits of evidence of Audi’s performance swing is the far more subtle, but most impressive, sports packages applied to its mainstream sedans.
I had the chance recently to test drive an Audi S4 for a week, and let’s just say a week was not enough. It was enough to realize the performance capabilities of the S4; heck, 15 minutes was enough to verify that. But driving an S4 for a week makes you desperate to keep on driving it.
At $40,000, the S4 climbs into some pretty select company among the world’s sports sedans. But in some ways it climbs right past them to occupy the top rung. Yes, if you were going to pick one car to best meet every possible requirement of a performance-oriented buyer — from scalding hot acceleration, lightning-quick handling, all-wheel-drive security, extremely safe construction, comfortably supportive seats, room for a family, and subtle beauty to the design — then the S4 may stand alone.
Len Hunt, the vice president of Audi of America, mentioned how the A4 sedan had turned Audi around when it was introduced in 1995. As an economical midsize car that sells for $26,000 to $30,000, depending on options, the A4 singlehandedly got Audi in the U.S. back on the affordable/high-tech fast track that it was on all over the rest of the world, and its success has caused Audi to go from the worst resale in the U.S. in 1991 to perhaps the best resale value right now.
“The A4 is our guiding star,” said Hunt. “And the S4 is our ‘silken rocket.’ ”
MEETING CHALLENGE
Auto magazine readers are well-aware that outfits such as “Car and Driver” ranked the Audi A4 as the No. 1 sedan under $30,000, beating the usual favorite, the BMW 3-series, and all the rest. In its May issue, Car and Driver ranked the best sedans under $40,000, and the Audi A6 with the 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 was ranked No. 1, ahead of the BMW 528, the Lexus GS300, the Jaguar S-type, Lincoln LS V8, Oldsmobile Aurora V8, and the Saab 9.5 Aero and Volvo S80 turbo.
Pretty bold evidence of Audi’s emergence at the top of the mainstream sporty-sedan segments.
The S4, however, stands above and beyond. Auto magazines also like to do special features on aftermarket hot-rod treatment applied to standard cars, but the beauty of the S4 is that it proves nobody can tweak a factory car better than the factory that built it.
A discerning performance-car buyer wants certain things. Sure, it must accelerate well, but it also must stop and swerve either way with precision, and it must be comfortable enough for everyday driving, from mundane traffic congestion to freeway cruising, but it also must possess suspension firmness that allows the car to be hurled around tight corners and maintain a flat, stable attitude.
The A4 is the perfect platform to start with. Audi then stuffs the 2.7 V6 under the hood. Now the 2.7 is a slightly revised version of the standard 2.8-liter V6, which was a sturdy, durable powerplant made hotter when Audi put five valves above each cylinder (three intake, two exhaust). By tweaking it to 2.7 liters of displacement, the dual-overhead cams run those 30 valves into specially revised combustion chambers with adjustable intake valve timing. On top of that, Audi engineers hook up two small turbochargers, rather than one large one, so they spin faster, eliminating lag.
The engine turns out 250 horsepower at 5,800 RPMs and 258 foot-pounds of torque in a constant from 1,850-3,600 RPMs. The bottom line to all that is 0-60 times of 5.9 seconds, which would be exceptional for a lightweight 2-seater sports car, but it’s well beyond that for a 3,593-pound sedan. That is heavy for a midsize sedan, but not for one with all-wheel drive.
The 6-speed is a no-cost option on the S4, while the standard transmission is the Porsche-designed Tiptronic, which allows you to drive in “Drive” or can be shifted manually, without a clutch. Audi’s incredible quattro system of all-wheel drive, which seamlessly can adjust torque feed to one axle if it detects the tendency to slip at the other.
Cornering is accomplished with revised four-link front suspension and double-wishbone rear, with many of the key components and all ball joints all made of aluminum on the S4. There also are twin-tube, gas-filled shocks and coil springs in front, and stabilizer bars both front and rear. The result is the feeling of absolute precision, and that without harshness the S4 wants to stay level no matter how you fling it around a turn.
NICE TOUCHES
At a base price of $37,900, the S4 is about $10,000 more than the standard A4, but it would be difficult to prove the enhancements aren’t worthwhile. There is a sport-package seat system with nappa leather that has a suede insert where some occupants wearing shorts might otherwise complain about sticking to leather in hot weather. A 10-way power unit adjusts the driver and passenger seats.
A stained bird’s-eye maple wood trim sets off the interior, which features backlighted red gauges, and specific direct and indirect lighting allows you to see other controls and where your feet are going on entry or exit. An 8-speaker, 80-watt sound system can be upgraded to a 150-watt Bose system, with a 6-disc player. Heated seats, a glass sunroof, automatic dimming interior and exterior mirrors, a HomeLink computer system augmenting a six-function trip computer also shows pictograms of doors, windows, temperature, radio frequency and other vital functions.
Safety features include the cage construction plus front and side airbags and special sideguard curtain airbags for further protection against side impacts.
Outside, the S4 has Xenon gas-discharge headlights that have a fantastic pattern of focused light, and an auto-leveling system to keep the low beams low enough to not bother oncoming drivers. Projection-lens foglights also do a great job of lighting up the low and wide areas. As usual, Audi has a rear foglight, too, which intensifies on one side to help following traffic see you sooner in fog or snowstorms.
The antilock brake system has front and rear differential locks and rear brake pressure regulation. Audi also took the larger brakes off the luxury A8 sedan, which gives ventilated twin-piston calipers on 12.6-inch discs in front, and 10.1-inch discs at the rear. So the S4 goes like a scalded cat, turns on the proverbial dime, and stops with smooth and surprising suddenness.
What more could you want? This is a car that promises everything — and then delivers.
[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The Audi S4 looks remarkably like the standard A4 sedan, except for the special wheels.
2/ Xenon gas-discharge headlights have self-leveling feature and are complemented by projector-beam foglights.
3/ The special headlights, and the tiny “S4” badge on the grille indicate that this is the S4.
4/ From the rear, the S4 maintains the A4 look, with only the S4 badge and the dual exhausts distinguishing the upgrade.
5/ As it rests, the S4 doesn’t betray its twin-turbocharged engine and sub-6-second 0-60 capabilities.
Piranha concept car displays great seats, better harnesses
[[[[[[[[cutlines:
1/ The Pontiac Piranha is one of numerous concept cars being shown by manufacturers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Auto Show, which runs through this weekend at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
2/ The slim-line bucket seats of the Pontiac Piranha concept car are a woven fabric, and they also exhibit 4-point safety harnesses that would be a world-class addition to any car.
3/ The 2001 Dodge Stratus is displayed at the Minneapolis show — the only show of its kind in Minnesota. It is powered by Chrysler’s over-achieving 2.7-liter V6. ]]]]]]]]]]
Auto show season is in full swing these days. The huge shows at Detroit, Los Angeles and Chicago already have been held, and the other huge U.S. show, the New York show, is still to come. But right now, this weekend, there is stilla good chance for Up North auto zealots to get to the Minneapolis Convention Center for the Minneapolis-St. Paul auto show.
Granted it’s not as large as those big ones, and it’s true that the Twin Cities show is more dealer-dominated than factory run, but there are a whole lot of neat factory cars and concept vehicles at this year’s show — more than any I can remember previously, and this is the 27th annual show put on by the Twin Cities dealers.
Spending a few hours kicking tires at an auto show is as close as most consumers can get to what test-driving auto columnists are raving about throughout the year.
If you happen to have a chance to get to the Twin Cities for the show, it runs through this weekend, with hours 10 a.m.-10 p.m. Saturday and 10 a.m.-7 p.m. Sunday.
In case you can’t, here are a couple of specialty highlights I noticed at the current show.
PIRANHA SEATS
Among an impressive array of concept cars sprinkled around the huge auditorium, one of the neatest is the Pontiac Piranha. It’s an impressive enough car, a wedgy, sleek little coupe, and there is also an accompanying cutaway model of it that shows the interior.
That includes four of the neatest car seats I’ve ever seen, and there is a working model also cordoned off from the customers, but which shows how impressive the design is.
There are several things to note about that seat. It used to be that a few companies made impressive seats while others made soft and squishy seats that bigger, heftier cars seemed to use most, and they insulated you from the feeling of being in a car, or of driving that car. As seats got better, they got to be more supportive, more form-fitting, and not as thick. Amazingly, when you want to build a firm and supportive — and safer — seat, you don’t need to make it with a foot-thick cushion and a 6-inch-thick backrest.
But the Piranha seat goes to the wall with that concept. It is a woven fabric seat, looking like nylon mesh, and that’s it. Obviously, it must be made of pretty strong stuff, if it is designed to hold a 200-plus pounder twice a day every day. We are going to accept Pontiac’s word that the seats work, that they won’t break down or get flimsy, and that they will retain their ability to support and contain the driver and riders over the lifetime of the car.
But let’s move to another area that I find extremely significant. The Piranha seats have a new, 4-point harness system.
Pardon me while I applaud.
Ever since lap belts were replaced by the 3-point lap-and-shoulder belt arrangement, I have asked why auto makers refuse to go to 4-point harnesses. The answer always has been that it’s difficult enough to get people to clasp the 3-point units on, and they’d never put on a 4-point belt.
But a few years ago, I discovered an after-market harness made by the German Schroth company. It used to make harnesses for race cars, but long since branched out to create the units to clip into regular street cars. I hooked them into my personal car, and it was simple. You bolt them onto the rear-seat anchors, then string the straps up and over the front seat backrest, where they come down fitting flush to the front of the backrests. Those straps then fasten to two belts coming out from either side of the front seat. Those lap belts fit through slots.
Now let’s consider the difference. How many times do you reach down along the left side, groping for the belt, and then the buckle itself, then you pull it up and over your front side and try to find the receptacle on the short end of the inside part of the other lap belt anchor. If you’re lucky enough to find it on first grope, you have a fighting chance of plugging it in efficiently.
In the Schroth unit I’m talking about, you climb into the seat, and you slip both arms under the two belts, with no more effort than if you were slipping into a vest with 3-foot long arm holes. Then you simply reach down and grasp two equal-length belts, and clip them together right about at belt-buckle location.
So much for the earlier criticism. Putting on the 4-point harness is actually easier than putting on the conventional 3-point harness, any day.
Ease of operation, however, is only a small part of this equation. The big key is safety. A 3-point harness is pretty safe, but a 4-point harness keeps you straight and secure in your bucket seat in the event of a frontal or rear or rollover accident.
Auto racers use 4-point harnesses, and then they go one step beyond that, with an anti-submarine belt that comes up and fastens to the bottom of the clasp to REALLY hold you firmly in place. But we aren’t all that worried about submarining down under the steering wheel in a street or highway fender-bender, at least not with the regularity of hitting a cement wall at 180 miles per hour, like they do in racing.
Still, consider those CART racers who might slide up and hit a concrete wall at 180 or even 200 miles per hour. Then they leap out and ask where their backup car is. Uninjured.
That’s the kind of safety we deserve in our autos on the streets. They don’t put airbags in race cars, because they don’t need them. The 4-point harness is more than adequate, and renders airbags as pretty much superfluous. As our accident statistics grimly point out, airbags may save some lives, but we aren’t all that sure how many, because a 3-point harness might have saved them anyway, and a 4-point harness almost surely would have saved them. Meanwhile, airbags have simply killed or injured many car occupants, either from the force of the inflation or the fact that the occupant was short and either bent over or got hit because the bag lined up poorly with their height.
The point of all this is that auto manufacturers trumpet their safety as a big selling point these days, but remember, none of them would have installed airbags if the government hadn’t forced them to bolster their “passive restraint” systems. That means we are trying to throw an air-pillow in front of those car-riders incapable or unwilling to fasten their harnesses. We feel we have to protect those who don’t want to protect themselves — it’s the American way.
So car makers have put airbags in front of us, and now they’re adding them to the sides, and in the backrests, and all over to protect and cushion car occupants from impacts.
The fact remains, I’d like to see us mandate 4-point harnesses, first and foremost. No telling how many lives they’d save. And the Pontiac Piranha concept car shows off exactly what I’m talking about.
Different companies, of course, are more serious about concept cars. Chrysler, for example, turned concepts to real-world in the cases of the Dodge Viper, Dodge Intrepid, Plymouth Prowler, and now the PT Cruiser. Audi made the TT coupe and roadster come to life as almost unchanged real cars. General Motors has a large array of concept cars at the show, including the stunning new Chevy SSR. The Pontiac Aztek is another that supposedly is going to be built.
But the Piranha? We have no idea if that is just an attention-grabber, or if the GM bean-counters will ever let it be built. Whether it is ever built or not, I’d love to see Pontiac, and the rest of GM, and the rest of the automotive world, adopt the concept of those 4-point safety harnesses.
OTHER NEW STUFF
Among other eye-catchers at the Twin Cities show:
Check out the Dodge Stratus. That may not seem so earth-shaking, but if you’re not looking for it, you might go right on past, thinking it was an Intrepid from the rear. The new Stratus is the yet-to-be-introduced 2001 car, and it bears a striking resemblance to a downsized Intrepid from the rear. The nose, however, is distinctly different, and a bit bulbous. The big news, however, makes the new Stratus my leading candidate for sleeper of the year, because it will be powered by the slick 2.7-liter Chrysler V6 engine, a dual-overhead-camshaft gem with chain-driven cams, instead of belts. It’s a precise, powerful engine, and while it is good enough to make the large Intrepid and Concorde fly, imagine what it will do with a 5-speed or AutoStick in the lighter, more compact Stratus.
While you’re at the Dodge location, follow the crowd over to the Chrysler position at the next patch, where people will constantly be surrounding the PT Cruiser. Sit in it, move the seats, fold them down, pop them out, and note all the features, for a car that is unique and will cost from $16,000-$20,000. That’s my candidate for 2001 Car of the Year, without even seeing the competition yet.
Ford is showing the new Explorer SportTrac, and the F150 Super Crew. Both are two-thirds SUV and one-third pickup truck box. Interesting. Ford also is displaying the new Escape, compact SUV that makes more sense than the jumbo versions. Note, too, the all-new Taurus, and the various models of the Focus, this year’s International Car of the Year.
Check out the Audi TT, then go through the Toyota section, where the new Celica reigns, and where the all-new MR-2 is showcased. Don’t overlook the Solara, a coupe version of the Camry. Same at the Honda place, but see if you don’t agree with me that the Accord Coupe looks racier — especially from the rear — than the Prelude. Check out the Civic Si, also, and then let your eyes pop as you check out both the affordable S2000 sports car, and the unaffordable NSX. There’s more, too, like the Jaguar S-Type sedan, the new Oldsmobile Aurora — and note how similar the Intrigue is to the old Aurora — and check the sleek new Volvo V40, and then the Saab 9-3 Viggen..
In the midst of the SUV craze, don’t look past the venerable minivans as the most reasonable means of transportation if you’ve got a family. There are all the usual candidates, but look closest at the Honda Odyssey, for all its features, and notice the new Mazda MPV, entirely changed from the old box into a competitive minivan now.
And, take one last stroll to compare how many highly-efficient, fuel-sipping products you can buy. The Focus and the Toyota Echo are the primary candidates among the mainstream vehicles, but the star of the show on that count is the Honda Insight — the already-available $20,000 car with both a 1-liter gasoline engine and an auxilliary electric motor, which kicks in for power when you step on the gas, but otherwise disengages and is recharged by the gas engine.
But those are just some of the highlights. Get to the show, and you’ll have your own.
SUV varieties run from $15,000-$71,000 stirring political debate
The SUV market continues to be the most controversial, and baffling, automotive segment in anyone’s memory. Year by year, and virtually month by month, more companies make more SUVs, and we’ve now reached the point where there are virtually several SUVs for every need and price range.
Looking at a broad cross-section of the segment, you can find every imaginable configuration. Consider, for example, the $15,000 Jeep Wrangler, or the $20,000 Honda CR-V, if you’re on a budget. Slide upscale to the $40,000 Chevrolet Suburban, or slide even higher — off the scale, you might say — to the $71,000 Land Rover Range Rover. Those four vehicles are all SUVs, yet have distinctly different markets in mind. They all have definite assets and definite liabilities, depending on which critic is analyzing them. Because of that, they all have a hand in the ongoing debate about SUVs.
Nationally, there are two segments in the debate: the SUV lovers, which includes upscale SUV buyers and manufacturers who insist big and costly SUVs are what the public wants; and the SUV haters, which includes most car-drivers and virtually all environmentalists, who challenge the pollution and lack of economy of anything from midsize SUVs and upward.
Regionally, the Up North buyers represent another part of the SUV debate, because so many folks in the area actually need larger truck-like vehicles for towing and/or hauling, for tending farms or ranches, and for frequent travel to and from cabins up in the woods.
Politically, it even seems as though the SUV battle has taken on a larger-than-life presence. Conservatives vehemently arguing for SUVs and accusing the anti-SUV types as whiney liberals who are trying to force the masses into their niche of environmentally more responsible vehicles with better fuel economy. Liberals counter that the conservatives are striving to support the wealthy manufacturers and the wealthier types who want the freedom to buy expensive, low-mileage, high-polluting SUVs with which to better trample the more responsible masses.
My stance always has been that consumers should buy a vehicle that meets their needs, but that anything bigger than “big enough” is too big, and probably wasteful. The largest SUVs are probably too big for almost everybody, but if your family is large enough or has a legitimate need for a gigantic Chevrolet Suburban or an even larger Ford Excursion, go for it. Those used to be the paramaters by which people bought such large trucks.
But the family who simply wants an SUV to use in the role of station wagon or minivan doesn’t need the heft and off-road capabilities of the costliest SUVs, and can now choose from smaller, lighter and more car-like SUVs with more moderate sticker prices.
I’ve been accused of being anti-SUV because I’ve suggested that some buyers simply want to buy the biggest SUVs because of an illusion of safety and security, and for the status of going one-up on the neighbors. Actually, I like SUVs from a test-drive standpoint. They’re often useful, almost always comfortable, even if they lack the good manners of being fuel-efficient.
My biggest criticism of SUVs is that they have gotten favorable treatment from the government. This was to be the year that SUVs and light trucks would be forced to live up to the basic standards of cars. When the government came up with the corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE) for cars, the aim was for 27.5 miles per gallon as a corporate average. Trucks, however, were viewed as being necessary as work vehicles, so they could meet only a 20.7 mpg level.
In case the government hasn’t noticed, trucks represent 50 percent of all vehicle sales in the U.S., and most of the SUVs and pickups are bought as personal family vehicles, no longer for work. So, logically, those trucks — many of which use identical engines as that company’s cars — should have to meet the higher CAFE standard. This was to be the year the law would be adapted to cover that, but the government voted it down.
There was speculation last week that the reason it was voted down was because so many legislators now own SUVs. Realistically, though, the legislators have caved in to the urging of manufacturers, via intense lobbyists, who insist that tightening the standards would force manufacturers to quit making the big SUVs that the public is demanding.
That, of course, is a joke. Reports are that General Motors and Ford make from $15,000 to $20,000 on every SUV costing from the mid-$30,000 range and above. While raking in such stunning profits, a manufacturer can make two engines — one cheaper to put in a truck and get lousy mileage with higher pollution, and the other with some more costly refinements to be put in cars. So tighter standards would simply mean manufacturers would have to carve only slightly into the ludicrous profits made on the biggest SUVs.
So I can like something about every SUV, but I still don’t have to like the politics of coersion. I’d like the SUVs even more if they got 20-25 miles per gallon, instead of 11-14. Wouldn’t you? Can you think of a single SUV owner who actually prefers to get 11 miles per gallon rather than 20-plus?
JEEP WRANGLER SAHARA
There are working SUVs and family SUVs, and then there are all-out fun SUVs. The Jeep Wrangler began life 60 years ago as a military vehicle, and has evolved, amid all the proliferation of SUVs, to remain a bouncy, off-road-loving vehicle that is pretty inefficient for any real family purpose, if such mundane things as trunk space matter. But those once-military elements of sturdy usefulness in hauling the colonel out to the command post now equate very well to active civilian lifestyles that thrust some folks into the wild, off-road, yonder.
The test vehicle I had was the upscale Sahara, which proves that even a Jeep that starts with a base price of $15,000 can be boosted to a Sahara base price of $20,545. That gets you the Sahara trim features and the 4.0-liter in-line 6-cylinder engine. Adding optional tires and wheels, antilock brakes, a quite-primitive 3-speed automatic transmission, air-conditioning, cruise control, a traction-locking differential, and a theft-deterrent system, boosts the sticker price to $24,320.
Open the doors and you’ll note that there’s a little strap holding the door from opening too far, keeping it simple. And when you enter on the passenger side, you can flip the bucket seat to allow access to the rear seats, but you can’t do the same on the driver’s side. Fuel economy is EPA estimated at 15 city, 18 highway.
The Sahara Edition also has foglights, a rollbar and all sorts of velcro and zipper fastenings for the plastic windows and the foldable soft top. It also is one of the most complex soft tops to put down, particularly in this era of simple sporty car convertible tops. The automatic transmission lets the big six pull the Wrangler with a lot of force, and there is a separate lever for 2- or 4-wheel-drive or low-range 4WD.
But to own one as your only vehicle, you’d have to be childless, preferably single, and spending a lot of your time churning through woods and roadless areas. Otherwise, you’d have to be able to afford the Wrangler as a second, or third, vehicle — mostly for fun.
HONDA CR-V
While virtually every other manufacturer was jumping onto the SUV bandwagon, for obviously beneficial economic reasons, Honda was late, perhaps joining a lot of analysts in being skeptical that the movement would go so far. Honda even contracted with Isuzu to get the Passport SUV, as a version of the Isuzu Rodeo. When Honda did come out with its own SUV, it was predictably user-friendly and fuel-efficient. The CR-V is not a heavy-duty off-road vehicle, although it can handle the unmaintained trail into the lake cabin, or most any light-duty off-road stuff.
Since SUVs are kept on the road in more than 95 percent of their applications, the CR-V is the perfect answer to a bigger and more useful station wagon. Its 2-liter, 4-cylinder engine can easily achieve its EPA ratings of 22 city, 25 highway (I got 24.2 in combined city/freeway use), but it also performs with quick response, thanks to a dual-overhead-camshaft design and the basic 5-speed manual transmission. It is close to perfect, for everyday use, because you can drive it moderately and perhaps get the notion it’s adequate but not too quick, and then you can stomp on it and get the revs up and singing, and realize it is surprisingly swift and sporty to drive.
The CR-V does not have a low-range lock for the transmission, which separates the hard-duty off-roaders. But it does have something called RealTime AWD, which is an all-wheel-drive system that is front-wheel-drive all the time, with up to half the torque automatically transferring to the rear when wheelspin is anticipated. The seat backrests are quite firm, but very supportive and comfortable. The interior is loaded with neat creature features, notably all sorts of trays, cubicles and slots for stowing papers and small items. A fold-up tray profides a surface with cupholders between the front buckets, otherwise it folds down securely and allows you a walkway between the seats. A platform on the rear floor conceals stowed items, and can be lifted out and its legs folded down, to turn into a picnic table.
The test vehicle was the top-of-the-line EX model, which is why its sticker came to $21,064 — thanks to dealer installed floor mats. Otherwise the sticker of $20,550 includes everything, from double-wishbone suspension with stabilizer bars, 4-wheel antilock brakes — although with disc front and mere drums in the rear, front and rear safety crumple zones and side impact door beams, keyless entry, air conditioning with micron air filter, AM-FM-cassette-CD audio system, power windows and locks, alloy wheels and all-season tires.
CHEVY SUBURBAN
The Suburban created the large-SUV niche, and had it all to itself until Ford brought out the Excursion. In fact, so dominant and so profitable was the Suburban that GM brought out a shortened version, the Tahoe. Now, when you drive the Tahoe, you have so much room that it’s hard to imagine something this much larger. The Suburban is huge, housing van-like quantities of cargo, and with three rows of seats.
For such a large vehicle, the Suburban is loaded with features to make it easy to live with, either as driver or passenger. It is so loaded, in fact, that it runs from a base price of $28,627 up to the actual $42,480. Full instrumentation, and the “smaller” 5.3-liter V8 engine with 4-speed automatic transmission, plus an evolving suspension that makes this Suburban handle better than its top-heavy predecessors, and 4-wheel disc brakes, all are assets. The lengthy option list includes a nine-speaker audio system with a subwoofer, keyless entry, front and rear heat and air conditioning, leather seats and trim, power windows, aluminum wheels, foglights, premium suspension, trailer package, bucket seats in the second row as well as up front, and a locking rear axle.
The smaller engine has an EPA estimate of 14 city and 16 highway, although owners have reported that those figures are optimistic. Because the Suburban is so large, stepping on the gas pedal produces a pause and then a lurch when you try to stay in rhythm with congested traffic. A curious ergonomic feature has a very handy grip handle for pulling the door shut, and a nicely angled handle for unlatching the door, but the unlatching handle is under the grip handle, and even after a week I still was groping several times before finding my way out. Similarly, there is the handy touch of three auxilliary power outlets behind a little door at the bottom of the center dash panel. But the door is hinged to open upward, meaning a driver or passenger can’t actually see the outlets unless you bend down so your head reaches the center console.
Eight cupholders, excellent controls with round, rotating knobs for air/heat and audio, and the plush seats make it comfortable, and the standard OnStar system should prevent you from getting lost, help you get found if you do get lost, or find out where the nearest fuel station, motel or restaurant might be up ahead. A push-button panel lets you switch from automatic 4-wheel-drive, to 2-wheel high, to 4-wheel high, to 4-wheel low. That would allow the Suburban to go off-road, and its high clearance should help such ventures. But it is huge, so maneuverability and agility would be challenged if the off-roading got too serious.
RANGE ROVER
Land Rover is a proud English company that was recently sold to BMW, and then sold again, but it remains a proud British producer of classic off-road vehicles. The larger, mainstream SUV from Land Rover is the Range Rover, and while I also had the opportunity to test the more compact Discovery model, the big Range Rover is an impressive vehicle.
It should be, of course, with a sticker price of $70,920. But, for those who have all sorts of what they call disposable income (“they” in this case refers to someone who can even comprehend having “disposable” income), the Range Rover is overbuilt to be an over-achiever in virtually any circumstance. To put it bluntly, if you had to drive to the North Pole without using any roads, the Range Rover would probably be your choice. These are the vehicles that we used to see in the wilds of Africa, or South America, or wherever it was too wild for any normal vehicle to travel.
The test vehicle has no options. Everything is standard. That includes a 4.6-liter aluminum V8, Bosch Motronic engine management system, electronic 4-speed automatic with normal, sport and manual shift modes and two-speed transfer case; alloy wheels with 18-inch mud and snow tires; electronic five-height position air suspension with articulating rear suspension; four-channel all-terrain antilock brakes; climate control with dual settings and micro pollen filtration; trip computer and message center; delayed power for windows and sunroof after ignition shutoff; key-activated system for closing all windows; 300-watt, 12-speaker audio with amplified subwoofer and 6-CD changer, plus speed-sensing volume, will assure you of hearing tones you never heard before.
Underneath, there is amazing ground clearance, and the girder-like chassis beams and amazingly long suspension travel means you could go over the rockiest, most uneven terrain and stay pretty level. The front and rear airbags, 4-wheel disc brakes, full-length side impact beams, foglights, antisubmarining seat frames, and driver-alert defrost and ice warnings and weather-band audio system pretty well cover the possibilities.
Although it’s large, you get the feeling that it has full control of its heft. The center console has a neat flipover lid that has four cupholders, and the leather seats are supremely comfortable. Outside, a push-button allows the upper hatch to fold up, and a second push on the same button causes the lower hatch to fold down. While powerful, the fuel-efficiency is not great, with EPA estimates of 12 city and 15 highway.
At $71,000, is the Range Rover worth it? Can any vehicle be worth it? Only if you can afford it. And then it becomes the ultimate one-upmanship SUV. Especially if you have a cabin on the northern side of Hudson Bay.
[[[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The Jeep Wrangler is a modern version of the military runabout of a half-century ago, and it’s aimed more at fun in current form.
2/ Honda has packaged a lot of useful features into the CR-V, an inexpensive and fuel-efficient SUV aimed at real-world utility.
3/ The 2000 Chevrolet Suburban is a refined and profitable version of the beast that started and dominates the large-SUV segment.
4/ Range Rovers are extremely expensive ($71,000) as the ultimate one-upmanship SUV, capable of conquering roadless trips.
Cell-phones are just one way of being driven to distraction
Driving along on the freeway with the cruise-control set at 70, you pull out into the left lane to pass a couple of cars that are going just under the speed limit, but once you’re out there, you see a menacing vehicle growing larger, quickly, in the rear-view mirror.
It is a brand new Isuzu Rodeo, a very nice SUV. This one, however, is not nice. Not the way it approaches, closer and closer, until it is right up on your rear bumper. Now, you’re on cruise, and you don’t particularly want to get off it, so you keep going, edging past the vehicle you were passing, and swinging promptly back into the right lane. Zoom! The Rodeo speeds up past you, and as it passes, you see it is being driven by a young woman who is talking on her cell-phone.
Almost immediately, the Rodeo slows down. Still on cruise, you are now closing in on another car in the right lane that is going just under the speed limit. So you pull back into the left lane to pass, and the Rodeo now pulls into the right lane, now having slowed to just under the speed limit. You can see through the rear window that the young woman driving the Rodeo is no longer on her cell phone, but something appears wrong. Her head is bouncing up and down and bobbing side to side. So now you edge past, and you glance at the driver — she is going crazy, singing along with her audio system, her head keeping time to the music.
This Rodeo driver was exhibiting the latest trend in driving problems — distraction.
We are told that a vast majority of serious highway accidents are because the driver is distracted. Most critics claim that cell-phones are the major problem, and that drivers shouldn’t be allowed to drive and talk on the cell-phone at the same time.
In many cases, those critics are right. For a lot of drivers, talking on a cell-phone is a major distraction. But our friendly local Rodeo driver proved a couple of things in a short minute or so: Cell-phones are a distraction, but only one in an ever-increasing scope of distractions. Loud audio systems are another, to say nothing of the CD or tape players that feed those audio systems. The music alone can drive a person to, as they say, distraction. But just think about driving alone and trying to reload a CD into the player. Then there are smokers, who may end up paying more attention to their cigarette, or lighting it, or sweeping the just-fallen ashes from between their legs, and wind up having their cars swerve just as their attention veers off course.
Then, of course, there is the worst distraction of all — those who have a few drinks and then drive. Remember, that the legal limit of alcohol in the blood is just a number, but everyone who drinks anything intoxicating diminishes their ability to focus properly on the task of driving to some extent. It may not be as bad as one who is “legally” under the influence, but any degree of impairment is serious, when the control of a two-ton vehicle is at stake.
In the tragic highway death of Minnesota Timberwolves player Malik Sealy a few months ago, there is no question that the driver of the other vehicle, who came down the wrong ramp — entering an exit and going the wrong direction on Hwy. 100 in the Twin Cities — is reponsible for the accident that took Sealy’s life. In the aftermath, we were told that Sealy had only had a couple glasses of champagne, several hours before the 4:30 a.m. accident. But in later tests, while the driver of the other vehicle had a blood-alcohol reading of .19, almost twice the legal limit of .10, Sealy was exonerated by having a blood-alcohol reading of .08 — under the .10 limit.
However, a lot of other states have .08 as their limit, and the Minnesota legislature, quite quietly, adopted a .08 limit since then, which means Sealy may not have been legally intoxicated at the time of the accident, but he was close then, and would be considered intoxicated under the .08 rule. The point is that either way, his judgment might have been impaired just a tiny amount, and we’ll never know whether having no alcohol in his blood might have allowed him an instantaneous reaction that could have let him avert or survive the tragedy.
CELL-PHONE PROBLEM
One of the best bits of advice while driving is to not only be aware of your vehicle and what it’s doing and how you’re controlling it, but to also try to be aware of every single vehicle in your scope of vision, ahead and behind you and approaching from every angle. Then anticipate that all of them might make a move that threatens your vehicle, just to be prepared for the worst, with the thought of surviving such a problem.
While being aware of other vehicles, you will notice a lot of cars being driven erratically, and often, these days, you will find they are driven by people who are using cell phones. What is easiest to notice is that those drivers don’t signal their turns, because they have to keep one hand on the steering wheel, and the other hand is clutching the cell phone.
I must confess, I engage in a variety of alternative things that might be considered “distractions” while I drive:
I fiddle with audio systems, changing discs and groping through the cases to find the ones I want to play next.
I often will eat a sandwich while on the freeway, and, whether engaging a sandwich or not, I will be drinking a tall cup of coffee in a thermal mug, or drinking a can of pop, and putting it in or taking it out of whatever receptacle is in whatever car is a distraction.
I play music, or listen to the radio, and sometimes I play it loud, if it sounds inspiring to turn it up.
But I have practiced the self-discipline to do more than one thing at a time, and to stay focused on driving all the while.
It all goes back to several emergency driving courses I’ve taken, and to a couple of extensive sessions driving on German autobahns, during which I truly learned the meaning of focusing on driving. When you’re whistling along at 135 miles per hour or so, you are not interested in cell-phone talking, or sandwich eating, or coffee drinking, or even the audio CDs.
But in normal driving, even on the two-hour freeway trips from Duluth to the Twin Cities or back, driving must be your No. 1 priority. Spill your coffee, put your cell-phone friend on hold while you set down the phone, or interrupt your CD-loading task, if any of those distractions are getting in your way of making a normal gear change or signalling a turn.
There are other distractions I’ve witnessed but never committed. I don’t read while I’m driving, but I’ve seen numerous other motorists actually reading on the freeway — setting a book or notebook on the steering column , and reading from it with only occasional glances up at the road ahead. I’ve also seen folks write things in notebooks while driving, balancing the notebook on the steering wheel while writing, and only occasionally looking up at the roadway.
But when the question turns to serious distractions, the main point is that it is possible to keep your attention focused on the responsibilities of driving, even while the cell phone rings. You answer, preferably by plugging in a headphone, but your gaze doesn’t leave the road, and controlling your vehicle remains your biggest priority. If you’re talking, and you need to make a left turn, simply telling the person on the other end of the phone call to “Hang on, I’ve got to signal for a left turn,” will earn you points — both from your caller and from the drivers on all sides of your vehicle.
Listen to loud music, but make sure that you don’t get too crazy, bobbing your head to follow the rhythm or singing along with the words, to carry out the requirements of safe — and focused — driving.
Drink your coffee, and eat your sandwich, but don’t let it become your main focus. Your vehicle is what counts, and your control over it.
[[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ Using a cell-phone while driving, even with an earphone, can be a dangerous distraction while driving, unless the driver can maintain focused priority on driving.
2/ Drinking coffee or pop is another of many potential distractions.
3/ Music can make a trip seem shorter and more pleasant, but don’t let the beat, or changing the CD, take over your concentration.
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