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.
Identity crisis can’t obscure value of Acura 3.2CL-S, 3.5RL
Auto-makers design cars to have a lifespan, something around five years before redesigning for technical or styling updates. Traditionally, buyers were reluctant to buy a model in its first year of existence, preferring to wait until the “bugs” were worked out, but with the current technique of computer designing, the trend has changed. Nowadays, it often makes sense to buy a first-year model because it comes out near-perfect and its technical innovations might pay off in resale five years down the road, and customers might be reluctant to buy the last year of a model’s run for fear of missing out on some new technology.
With Honda, however, it seems that there are advantages to choosing either the first-year or last-year in a particular model run, because it generally turns out advanced engineering tricks that work at introduction time, and they, plus continued upgrades, tend to make those same vehicles maintain their value well throughout their lifespan.
Honda went upscale in the mid-1980s, bringing out its Acura companion line, featuring the luxury Legend and the entry-level Integra, and later a shorter-lived and less-popular midsize vehicle called the Vigor. Later, the NSX sports car gave Acura an exotic, Porsche-type performance vehicle.
Things got puzzling in 1995, when Honda decided arbitrarily to go to “alphanumeric” model designations rather than to weird names. The replacement for the Legend became the “RL,” while the middle-class luxury sedan became the “TL,” and then Acura made a coupe called the “CL.” Meanwhile, Acura loads those cars with V6 engines, using either a 3.2- or 3.5-liter displacement, with the 3.5 in the larger RL and the 3.2 in both the TL and CL.
Got that?
If you do, you’re one-up on most of us. Stately German vehicles from Mercedes and BMW always have used valid numbers to designate their vehicles, but in recent years, the proliferation of cars, trucks, vans, SUVs worldwide has led to some great confusion. No matter how much I study cars, when somebody asks, “What do you think of the new RL?” I’ve got to stop and recalibrate my brain to first decide that RL means Acura, and, let’s see, is it the big one, the middle one or the coupe?
To try to set the record straight, I’ve recently had the opportunity to drive the all-new 2001 Acura 3.2CL-Type S coupe. That adds yet another wrinkle to the confusion, because the CL tells us it’s the coupe, and the 3.2 is the engine size, but the Type S is a special high-output, sporty performance model.
Having written several months ago about the 2000 model 3.2 TL sedan, which was completely revised in 1999, I also had the chance to thoroughly test the 2000 model year 3.5 RL. The 3.5 RL is completing the last year of its current lifespan, and it proves that an outgoing model can be a worthy choice for long-term companionship.
Ah, but the CL coupe — particularly in racy Type-S trim — gives the upscale end of the Acura line a worthy compatriot for the sportiest Integra boy-racers and the exotic NSX. The Acuras further blur the line between domestic and import cars. They are 75 percent domestic (North American) content, and are assembled at Honda’s Marysville, Ohio, plant, which, in some views, makes it more domestic than a lot of U.S. vehicles now being built in Canada or Mexico.
3.2CL-S COUPE
The 3.2TL mid-range sedan has been an enormously satisfying car for Acura in the past year since its reintroduction, and, in fact, it infringes on the larger RL territory because of the high output of its smaller V6. The CL is a coupe version of the midrange sedan, and Acura has connected again, with a neatly styled but understated vehicle that has moderately good performance.
And then comes the Type-S, which vaults Acura’s slightly larger front-wheel-drive coupe up, up and away. The 3.2 V6 comes standard with 225 horsepower and 215 foot-pounds of torque — very good in the larger TL sedan, and excellent for the smaller coupe — as the replacement for the 3.0-liter engine in the model’s predecessor. But the Type-S shows Honda engineering at its best. Tweaking Honda’s VTEC variable-valve timing system toward high-performance, the Type-S vaults up to 260 horsepower at 6,100 RPMs, with 232 foot-pounds of torque at a flattened peak from 3,500 up to 5,500 RPMs.
Extracting 260 horsepower out of 3.2 liters shows what technology can do, and Honda does it with a single overhead-camshaft on each bank of the V6. That means there still is something in reserve, in case Honda wants to advance to even more power by going to dual overhead cams. Altered pistons, higher capacity exhaust flow, and the CL-S has a dual-stage induction system, which is timed to open a second intake surge when the revs hit 3,800.
As usual, the technology that develops a lot of power from a comparatively small-displacement engine also achieves good efficiency throughout. Even the high-output Type-S engine qualifies as both a low-emission and ultra-low-emission standards, and its EPA fuel estimates are 19 city and 29 highway.
To differentiate the CL-S from the standard CL, and further lift it above the TL sedan, the car has silvery-white faced instruments on the inside, and a revised and stiffer springs on the double-wishbone suspension with low-profile tires on 17-inch alloy wheels underneath. Still, the CL-S maintains its dignity, staying supple instead of harsh and always letting you know that it’s a luxury coupe — albeit a scorching one — rather than a sports car.
When you do want to go hard, and swiftly, you can shift the standard 5-speed automatic lever over to the left, where it rides in an alternative channel for spring-loaded bump upshifts or downshifts. Called Sequential SportShift, it’s a more enjoyable way of commanding the willing engine to zoom up to its 6,300-RPM redline, but you can always switch back to “D” in the normal gate to use the automatic shifter.
The coupe also shares the benefit of Acura’s navigation system, which has a large screen on the upper center dash, and operates by a digital versatile disc (DVD) system that lets you code in your destination and then advises you on the best route to take. The Type-S adds the new Vehicle Stability Assist system to coordinate the throttle and injection systems with the standard antilock brake and traction-control devices. That system began life on the 2000 RL sedan.
According to Honda’s plan for Acura, the 3.2CL-S includes everything as standard equipment — from the four-wheel disc brakes, the high-output engine, the sports suspension, dual-stage driver and passenger airbags, keyless entry, navigation system, to the power leather seats that are heated, in-dash 6-disc player, power moonroof, Xenon high intensity headlights and climate control. The only thing added to the base price of $32,330 is a destination and shipping fee.
3.5RL SEDAN
The company flagship represents the polished end of its current ride, but the 3.5RL has fulfilled its luxury objectives. Critics have a point, that the current model is so understated as to blend in almost anonymously with numerous competitors from Lexus, Mazda, Infiniti and some German and American models.
There is a lot of speculation about what the new RL sedan will be like when it is unveiled in revised form for 2001, but the 2000 model deserves scrutiny from those who want performance and technology packed into their luxury sedan.
I had the opportunity to do a week-long test of a 3.5RL on the same weekend as the Indianapolis 500, so my son, Jeff, and I drove it there and back. We went through Chicago, which is never a pleasant task, but is particularly unpleasant when approached during rush hour just before a holiday weekend. The Bose audio system, dual-mode climate control and the plush leather seats inside the spacious RL made it a pleasure to sit in, even then.
On our return trip, however, we decided to avoid Chicago at all costs, having experienced that weekend-ending traffic in previous years. We checked the maps and decided that the best way was to circle west, through Champaign, Ill., and then curve northward to Rockford before rejoining the freeway system as Illinois turns into Wisconsin.
As an experiment, we also calibrated our Twin Cities destination into the navigation system, and I hit the choice to find the most time-saving direct route. In a flash, the screen suggested we should go west out of Indianapolis, circling north at Champaign to Rockford and on into Wisconsin. It also charted us directly to our home address as the ultimate destination, and a pleasant voice always advised us ahead of time to prepare to turn at the next exit — that sort of thing.
We got a late start home, at about 9 p.m., and wound up driving straight through. It sounds more grueling than it was, because the plush accommodations made it always pleasant.
The 3.5RL has a definite luxury look to it, long and lean, but understated. It, too, has every imaginable thing included, and the price tag of $44,000 lacks only the destination charges. To make that price worthwhile, Honda has spared no effort to put the RL at the upper echelon, with special attention to details such as real Tendo-camphor wood trim, specially bolstered seats, and all sorts of safety touches, with the strongest unit-body structure the company has ever produced, with a honeycomb structure for rigidity at the bottom, and two-sided galvanized steel all around to make it corrosion-proof.
That stability system and the navigation device are impressive. And the Xenon lights, audio system and climate-control are all first-rate, and the roominess of the rear seat and trunk make it an easy long-range traveler.
As for signs that it’s time for Acura to revise the RL, the 3.5-liter V6 has 210 horsepower, which is less than the 3.2 in the TL, and considerably less than the 260 in the CL coupe with the 3.2. The RL has 224 foot-pounds of torque, which is an adequate amount, with the key asset that it peaks at 2,800 RPMs. That is obvious proof that Honda knows what American drivers want, which is strong low-end acceleration, so the torque comes in heavy at low RPMs to help at launch.
The four-speed automatic transmission has a grade-logic computer control for shifting according to driving style, but the RL has the new five-speed. Presumably, we can look for such upgrades from the new model, but that doesn’t mean the 2000 is obsolete.
In fact, with Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, and other luxury car-makers building front-engine/rear-drive models for their top-end sedans, the Acura 3.5RL remains front-wheel-drive, which is an obvious asset in Up North winter driving.
[[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The Acura 3.2CL-S is the 2001 example of Honda technology in a luxury sports coupe.
2/ The smoothly sculpted rear of the CL houses the Type-S dual exhaust tubes, which help it hit 260 horsepower.
3/ White-faced instruments and Honda’s helpful and efficient navigation system set off the coupe’s interior.
4/ Acura’s flagship 3.5RL provides high-tech answers to all the luxury car questions, even as it heads for replacement this fall.
Renovated SSEi Bonneville tries to maintain sporty title
The Pontiac Bonneville for 2000 offers the renewal of its bold statement as the raciest high-performance sedan in the General Motors stable.
If it seems as though the Bonneville was long overdue for a makeover, it’s because the car has undergone only cosmetic changes since 1992, when it became filled with performance features that set it apart from its cousins at Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Buick or Cadillac.
Those who liked what Pontiac had done to the Bonneville, REALLY liked it, while critics accused the car, and the GM brand, of trying to cater to boy-racer instincts, and overdid it with racy styling touches.
If you remember the Bonneville as a somewhat bulging, gimmicky sedan, you can forget it for 2000. The new Bonneville SSEi, which is the top-of-the-line high-performance version, still retains the plastic side-body cladding with its accent lines and all, and the new bumper has similar accent lines.
But for 2000, the Bonneville is all-new, riding on the same Oldsmobile Aurora platform also used by the Cadillac Seville and Buick LeSabre. The bulbous body is gone, replaced by a stark, wedgy look, angling back from a prominent chin up front. The side cladding even has a major indentation to set it off with less-trite appeal than the lengthy strakes on the previous model.
Despite criticism of the old model, I liked it for its driveability, and its very impressive interior. General Motors has often weakened the personalities of some of its cars with a dull sameness, but the Bonneville has always remained an individual, with well-bolstered seats that feature large supportive side bulges, and with instrumentation that is almost airplane-like in its bold attractiveness.
The new model does everything its predecessor did, and looks sleeker and more fit at the same time.
OLD ENGINE WORKS
Under the hood of the SSEi Bonneville breathes the same old 3800 V6 that has matured and aged over 40-some years of GM usage. It has pushrods where overhead camshafts are featured by all competitors, domestic, foreign and even within GM, if you count Oldsmobile and Cadillac.
But the GM engineers have worked and worked to make the old-style 3800 as sophisticated as a pushrod engine can be, smoothing out the friction and pushing its efficiency up near the limit. Then they put a supercharger on top of the 3800 for usage in the Bonneville. A supercharger runs off an accessory belt and blows large doses of compressed air into the intake, jacking up the available horsepower to 240 at 5,200 RPMs, while the engines strong torque is 280 foot-pounds at 3,600.
While techno-zealots can argue that GM should simply get with it and start using the more sophisticated dual-overhead-cam 3.5-liter V6 used in the Olds Intrigue and Aurora, there can be no argument that the blown 3800 produces strong acceleration and power. On top of that, I got a strong 24.9 miles per gallon in a tankful that was used for both city and freeway driving.
It costs more to build the 3.5 than it does the old pushrod 3800, so GM has no plans to supplant the 3800 with the 3.5. It will continue to offer both in all but the Olds and Cadillac sedans, and it will supercharge the fastest specialty vehicles in the lineup.
The four-speed automatic transmission is the only way you can get the car. GM hasn’t yet seen fit to provide a shifter that you can manually shift in its automatics, even though all of its serious competitors now offer the feature. With the Bonneville now challenged for superiority in its quest to be the top U.S. performance sedan, cars like Chrysler’s sporty and sophisticated 300M offer all sorts of alternatives.
But the Bonneville will run with any cars, particularly in the low-end haul up to over-freeway speeds. And its sports suspension tightens things up just enough to give it a sportier feel compared to other Pontiac models, such as the SE and SLE.
The front-wheel-drive Bonneville also can beat almost all its competition when it comes to flat out gimmicks.
VIEW FROM THE WHEEL
For drivers who don’t discriminate strictly on the height of technology, the Bonneville SSEi offers a sporty, racy feel. It starts when you first sit in the bulgy, heated driver’s seat, with the orange-lighted gauges that provide full instrumentation. In fact, the SSEi offers more than full instruments, with the brilliant heads-up display projecting the speed and certain other details on a little panel superimposed on the lower windshield.
The audio system is exceptional, easy to control and with AM-FM radio, cassette and single disc player in the dash, plus a 12-CD player in the trunk.
A power sunroof is another solid feature, as is the dual-zone climate control, with eight air-heat vents in the dash, and a computer that tells you if your fuel level is getting low, and how such details as oil life, battery and tire pressure are doing.
On top of the normal traction control, the SSEi has GM’s new StabiliTrak skid control system that coordinates speed and braking and functions to counteract any spinning of the drive wheels to eliminate the tendency to skid.
Some of the controls go beyond the competition, others don’t measure up. The dual cupholders up front, for example, have nothing to do with driving through a slalom or being impressded with the SSEi as a hot performer. But they will house two cans of pop perfectly, yet they won’t accommodate a pair of 20-ounce cups at the same time. So stick with the cans if you’re in a Bonneville.
While the hood tapers quickly away from the driver’s vision, control of the SSEi is enhanced by the through-the-windshield heads-up instruments, and is aided by prominent foglights set into the bumper fascia in that smoothly tapered front end.
Price of the SSEi version of the Bonneville is up, up and over the $30,000 mark, with the test SSEi at a bit over $32,000, and if it seems that such a price should get you the highest level of technical sophistication, you at least can settle for a high-tech sedan makeover, with virtually everything except the engine all new. And the engine isn’t that hard to live with, when you know that the SSEi will run with the best, and is likely to outrun most of them.
Ford gives SUV-king Explorer thorough overhaul for 2002
Sure, there are Jeeps. There also are Suburbans, 4Runners, Tahoes, Pathfinders, Durangos, Land Rovers, Range Rovers and sport-utility vehicles of all shape, size and manner. But there is only one Explorer, and with it Ford has both the most popular-selling SUV in the industry, but also a pretty major challenge.
The problem is, when you have the top vehicle in an astonishingly successful segment, how do you redesign it?
Do you make subtle changes, just softening a line here or there, to maintain all the popularity built up over the years? Or do you go for a major, sweeping makeover, from the ground up, knowing that such a move might put you on the cutting edge of technology, but also might turn off some of those faithful buyers?
With the Explorer showing its age against a snarl of SUVs — which numbers 43 at present but is anticipated to hit a peak of something over 70 models in the next five years — Ford tried to reach both extremities in rebuilding the Explorer. The new vehicle is entirely new, from the ground up, and it has numerous distinguishing features, but every attempt was made at retaining a few design cues to prove that it is linked to the popularity of Explorers present and past.
The new Explorer is so new that it won’t be officially introduced to the public until January, when it also can be declared a 2002 model. Here, just as we’re bracing to view all the new 2001 vehicles, Ford unveiled the 2002 Explorer (and companion Mercury Mountaineer) at a special showing at the rotunda in the company’s suburban Detroit compound at Dearborn.
Ford’s executives proclaimed that at home, people show who they are, but on the road, they show what they want to look like. Interesting theory. Ford also proclaimed itself as the world’s most wide-spanned producer of SUVs. Explorer brand manager Ed Molchany said: “This is the 10th straight year that Explorer has had the best SUV sales (topping 400,000 annual vehicles in each of those years). We’ve got six different SUVs.”
Ford has sold 3.5 million Explorers in the past 10 years, and over 4 million if you add in the companion Mountaineers. When Ford added the Expedition as a larger SUV, it found itself tangled into the surging SUV expansion. Next came the Excursion, the largest of all SUVs, but that left a void at the smallest end, which Ford is filling this fall with the 2001 introduction of the Escape, to do battle with the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Xterra and the like.
The Escape, however, is so impressive in its sizing and utilization of space, that it appeared it might well intrude on the hallowed ground of Explorer in the eyes of customers. When I asked regional public relations director Scott Jensen about that, his response was: “But wait until you see the new Explorer.”
KEY ELEMENTS
There are several keys to the redesign. Ford took on all of them starting with: improving the style; keeping the size the same but making more of it usable; improving the powertrain; and improving the suspension for handling and agility.
Styling paid attention to every detail, stretching the outer skin around a longer wheelbase and setting off an all-new grille and frontal area with what designer Jay Mays called “crisp, sharp lines.” Wheelwell openings, lower body cladding, everything contributed to what Ford calls a “design DNA” that makes the Explorer unmistakable as an Explorer.
The length of the Explorer remains the same as the existing, and outgoing, Explorer, but the wheelbase has been lengthened 2 inches by moving the front axle 2 inches forward and shortening the front overhang, which also gives the Explorer an improved approach angle to abrupt hills when driving off-road. The tread width of the left and right wheels is 2 ½ inches wider, and the body is 2 inches wider. The underbody ground clearance is increased by 1 inch to 9 inches, and yet the Explorer has a half-inch lower step-in height. The increased size equates to 2.3 inches more shoulder width and 3.25 inches more hiproom. In addition, the roof itself is slightly swept up to increase headroom in the second and third rows of seats.
For power, Ford took the original 5.0-liter V8 and 4.0-liter V6 and added a single-overhead-camshaft to the old 4.0 several years ago, creating a far superior engine. For the new model, Ford is going to its heralded modular 4.6-liter overhead-cam V8, made of all aluminum, for its upgraded engine, while the SOHC 4.0 4-cylinder is the other available powerplant. That puts Ford into a class with the best imported SUVs in technology, and far ahead of General Motors, which doesn’t yet have a single overhead-cam engine available in any purebred GM SUV. An all-new 5-speed manual transmission and a proven and reinforced 5-speed automatic are the two Explorer transmissions.
The 4.0 has 210 horsepower and 240 foot-pounds of torque, while the 4.6 V8 delivers 240 horsepower and 280 foot-pounds of torque. The 4.6 also provides a 62-pound weight reduction over the old 5.0 V8, and has coil-on-plug ignition, which engineers say will eliminate the spark plug wires that are the major source of driveability problems. The extra power and flexibility of the 4.6 gives it a 7,300-pound towing capacity, compared to 6,800 with the 5.0.
The suspension also is a key ingredient of the new Explorer, which will debut independent rear suspension. A stiffer frame 3.5-times stiffer than the old leaf-spring/solid-axle, and has considerably less up-and-down motion with IRS compared to conventional leaf-spring. The new Explorer platform also is eight times stiffer from lateral flexing. Coil springs wrapped around shock absorbers replace torsion bars, allowing more refined tuning of the handling feel. IRS should be heavier than conventional solid-axle suspension, but Ford made a lot of components out of aluminum to improve strength and reduce weight. By fixing the suspension lower, and going to IRS, Ford has been able to greatly lower the body itself, which allows for the seeming contradiction of having lower step-in height and yet greater ground clearance.
COMFORT AND SAFETY
Other objectives Ford had for the new Explorer were improving on the safety, both from the active and passive sides, and improving the ease of operation, the customer-friendly side of things.
The stiffer platform and improved suspension allow the Explorer driver to make better use of the tighter steering feel and become an active part of the safety built into accident avoidance. In concert, Ford has improved the braking capability of the Explorer. Ford produced a chart of random competitors and showed braking distances. The existing Explorer was up there near the Pathfinder and with longer braking distance than the Jeep, Mercedes ML320 and 4Runner. The 2002 Explorer, however, will stop in 30 feet less, putting it at the top of that group.
More than that, to many customers, is the feel that goes along with greater control and agility. The Explorer is aimed at a sportier ride, maybe more fun, while the more stately Mountaineer is a bit softer and more refined. With antilock braking and an AdvancedTrak system to apply braking to a spinning wheel while also transfering torque to the other wheels, the new Explorer should be well-equipped to avoid dangerous situations.
But Ford also paid great attention to passive safety, with a new “safety canopy” side curtain. Augmenting second-generation frontal airbags and pretensioner-equipped harnesses, the canopy is a side curtain that runs from the front seat past the back of the rear seat. In the event of a side impact, the curtain drops down to protect the occupants’ heads from banging on the door or window.
Beyond that, the safety canopy is designed to also function in rollover incidents. As the vehicle tilts toward rollover, it reaches a point of no return. When that occurs, and a rollover is inevitable, the canopy opens on the sides and will remain open for a 6-second duration. Six seconds doesn’t seem very long, but it is much longer than the time it takes for an out-of-control vehicle to roll over and over three times. The canopy not only cushions the head and shoulder of occupants, but it will help keep the occupant inside the framework of the vehicle.
Perhaps most important is the crashworthiness. With frame rails and a boxed frame section running full length, protection against frontal, side and rear intrusion is reinforced. The concept also works to divert impacts around the occupant compartment. The frame rails are designed to line up with sedan frame-rails.
While the Explorer is still too new to have been tested by the government, Ford officials said that after their own 35-mile per hour barrier crashes, all four doors could still be opened.
Occupant pleasantness is further enhanced by great attention to wind noise and road noise. Ford has not only gone to excess in trying to control such noises, but technicians have gone on to tune some noise into the sound of the engines as they accelerate, again tilting toward making the Explorer more sporty-sounding. There is a 25-percent reduction in wind noise at 80 mph, and the more rigid frame, rubber body mounts and microcellular construction inside the pillars, plus laminated dash material, makes road noise also significantly reduced.
Cupholders, a pen-holder, easier to operate hanger hooks on the rear hand-grips, more logical power lock switches, and adjustable pedals as well as the tilt and telescoping steering wheel aid the driving experience. And a 30-degree angled outer door hand grip is both easier to operate and ring and fingernail safe.
If it seems Ford hasn’t overlooked any detail, it proves what a company can do when it is on top of an ever-expanding pile of competitive SUVs, and intends to maintain that position.
[[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ Ford unveiled a completely rebuilt Explorer, for production this fall and introduction in January as a 2002 model.
2/ Two-stage frontal airbags and pretensioned harnesses are supplemented by a safety-canopy side airbag curtain for side impacts and rollover protection.
3/ The interior of the Explorer also has been completely redone for improved ergonomics and occupant comfort.
4/ The underside of the new Explorer shows how streamlined the new independent rear suspension fits with the platform to allow a lower body that also has greater ground clearance.
Consumers left seeking alternatives as gas prices hit $2
The young woman pulled up to the self-service island, got out, twisted off the gas cap of her aging and corroding car, and inserted the regular fuel nozzle. The neon glow of the gas price sign nearby read “Unleaded regular $1.89, Mid-grade $1.97,” and then showed a price for diesel, tastefully avoiding the display of a premium that was $2.05. The young woman acted as if she was oblivious to the high prices, but she wasn’t. She drove away having put $5-worth into her car. That used to be enough to get folks to work for most of a week, but this week, that $5 got you 2.6 gallons, max.
The cry circulates in the news, on television, everywhere grumbling consumers gather, and even the government has heard and is sending folks out to study why we’re getting stuck with exorbitant gasoline prices. But we knew it was coming, or at least we should have known. Some callers and e-mailers have indicated to me that they’ve already made serious choices. Some traded in their SUVs for economical sedans, or compact station wagons. The ones who are sticking with bigger, gas-guzzling vehicles, either need them for work or for weekly hauling, or else they are smug in their belief that this will all just blow over, and we’ll be back to the $1-a-gallon days any time now. We can assume that those trucks blowing past on the freeway at 80-plus mph, and getting the lowest possible fuel economy, are in the latter group.
For those with a more realistic grasp on things, there are some alternative choices. Despite the rising cost of the average car, to something around $23,000, there are some extremely economical cars built by some responsible companies. I’ve test-driven some, and the trend seems to be toward cars I’ve written about, such as the PT Cruiser, Volkswagen Beetle and Golf, Dodge Neon, Toyota Echo, Honda Civic, Ford Focus, and the innovative Honda Insight, with its gasoline-electric hybrid motors.
Among other possibilities, the Focus can be bought as a compact station wagon as well as a coupe or sedan, and Saturn’s latest version includes an upgraded station wagon with EPA fuel-economy estimates of up to 38 miles per gallon on the highway. Those cars both are moderately priced, running from $14,000, loaded, for the Focus, to $17,000, fully equipped, for the Saturn wagon.
Meanwhile, Korean manufacturers such as Hyundai and Kia are challenging some of the most economical Japanese cars with new and fuel-efficient products. Cars such as the Hyundai Accent and Excel and the Kia Sephia have proven that companies can build vehicles to sell for even less than $10,000 that will provide adequate commuting transportation while also delivering well over 30 miles per gallon.
As for those who have ignored the ever-escalating warnings of the problems of finite fuel-production reserves, and have purchased expensive vehicles without regard to emission problems and fuel economy, we’re stuck with gasoline prices of $2 and rising. We who have dismissed all the signs along the way now sound outraged by what’s happening, even if it seemed to be inevitable to rational thinkers.
So what can we do about it? Not much, except that we can break it all down into a series of elements, some or all of which may be related, and see which ones are likely to link.
About 30 years ago, emission-control devices were hooked onto cars, despite the protests of auto manufacturers. A few years later, another device was added — a catalytic converter to work with the muffler, to convert “deadly” carbon monoxide to “harmless” carbon dioxide.” It worked, although I wrote then that it would just be a matter of time before somebody proved that carbon dioxide was something other than harmless. Sure enough, in recent years scientists discovered that carbon dioxide carves holes in the ozone layer, and allows too much harmful heat into our atmosphere.
Trucks were excluded from the government rules, because as we all knew back in 1970, the only folks with trucks were those who needed them for work, so giving them a break on the high cost of refined engines seemed only fair. No one back then, of course, could foresee the incredible surge of popularity of pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles, bought for simple commuting despite horrendous fuel-efficiency. The auto manufacturers anticipated well, building those trucks and making ’em fancier by the year, while escalating the prices from half as much as cars to twice as much as cars. Manufacturers make enormous profits on each truck sold, and the public demand for high-performing trucks has made them so popular that dealers rarely have to deal on discounting the prices.
When the gasoline crunch of the 1970s hit, there was considerable panic in the gasoline lines that the world was running out of gasoline. That wasn’t true, of course, but the Middle Eastern countries that comprise OPEC have such control over the majority of the world’s oil reserves that they enjoyed becoming the tail that wagged the dog. And because of our country’s smug attitude, it was a fat and sassy dog getting wagged. When prices stabilized, and OPEC started giving us a more consistent share, a lot of people in the U.S. were so relieved they over-reacted, and to this day they seem to assume that there is an unlimited amount of gasoline out there. That feeling has never gone away, although there are signals that it might be, right about now.
In the course of the gasoline-shortage scare of the 1970s, the government put in place 55 mile per hour speed limits on the freeways. When the gas “crisis” relaxed, the 55 was kept because of perceived safety benefits. Those benefits proved inaccurate in later years, because raising the speed limit to 70 was done only on freeways, where very few of the serious accidents occur, and fewer still if the majority of traffic was going the same speed. But because 55 was our limit, domestic automakers could get away with building inferior, lower-technology engines, when compared to the European companies, who built higher-tech engines to operate on unlimited-speed autobahns, or to the Japanese companies, which copied the best European technology and sold it cheaper in the U.S. That put U.S. companies well behind, a fact that was amplified when the 55 limits were raised.
Among the technical advantages of European engines was that they required better gasoline to run at higher RPMs. For years, car manufacturers have wondered how U.S. gasoline can be so foul, so unrefined as to have higher sulfur content than other countries would allow. Sure, Europeans pay more for gas, but it is good gasoline, running through engines built for durability as well as high performance. You will notice the same cars have smaller engines but with more power, higher speed capabilities and better fuel economy in Germany than they have here, where car-buyers care more about 0-40 acceleration — even in their SUVs — than they do about being ripped off by hefty vehicles, low-tech engines, and fuel, that combine for lousy gas mileage.
Newer, stricter emission and fuel-economy laws in the U.S. finally convinced the government to force fuel companies to provide better gasoline for us. Gasoline companies tell us that because some states have demanded reformulated gasoline to help clean up their air, the price of more refinement has contributed to raising the gas prices in the Midwest. Right. Minnesota, for some reason, curiously has not pushed that law through, but our prices are right there next to Chicago as being among the highest in the country.
The gasoline companies shook us up a little this spring when prices shot up. At that time, I wrote that the price of regular was heading toward $2 a gallon by summer. Some people shook their heads. Others traded gas-guzzling SUVs for higher-mileage cars, or considered it. The prices sagged back just a bit, right after Memorial Day, but, obviously, that was a warning sign of what was coming, and now is here.
Those who believe the government is running the country are too naïve to realize that lobbyists from big corporations have spent the past 30 years becoming more clever about running the government. While consumers are buying trucks that get 11 miles per gallon for personal use — replacing cars, station wagons and minivans that used to be criticized for getting as little as 20 mpg — lobbyists continued to convince the government that there should be no new enactment of laws to include trucks with car-like restrictions on pollution or fuel economy.
It was inevitable that the government finally would also slap the stricter emission and economy standards on pickup and SUV trucks that are already in place on cars. It has been rumored for several years, and this was the year it was to happen. About a month ago, I saw the tiny little news tidbit that said the government had decided NOT to enact higher standards on trucks, after all! The standards would not have eliminated SUVs and pickup trucks, as the manufacturers would have us believe, but would simply have forced the manufacturers to provide more fuel-efficient, cleaner-burning engines in those big trucks. It’s not as though they couldn’t afford it; General Motors and Ford make $15,000 or more on their SUVs that cost over $35,000, and refining their engines a bit would only have cut slightly into that obscene profit margin. William Clay Ford even acknowledged the irresponsibility of his own company for being so environmentally unfriendly, and Ford seems to be leading the way toward creating more fuel-efficient SUVs. Others have been less forthright, apparently content to haul in the huge profits, which make it easier to pay the top executives those seven-figure salaries, and to give raises to those lobbyists in Washington who convince the government to vote against any laws that might cut into automotive profits.
It must have been just coincidence (wink-wink), but one week after the government declared that trucks and SUVs would continue to be allowed to be built without stricter emission and economy rules, gasoline prices started to rise again. And riseÂ…and rise. I noticed it right away, because I drive a lot of test vehicles, and I’m always testing fuel economy, and comparing prices between Duluth and other Up North cities and the Twin Cities. When you go away for two days and come back to find a 10-cent increase at the pumps, you notice. Now the government, which delayed forcing fuel refiners to give us cleaner and better gasoline, and which has been so vulnerable to the doubletalk by lobbyists that it backed off from the rational and logical law to force auto manufacturers to be responsible in spite of themselves, is engaged in a highly-publicized search to see if it can find any reason why gas prices should be so high.
Hello! Is this an election year? Is there anybody out there? Are any of these things linked together? Or is this all to be tossed aside as a misinformed conspiracy theory?
The true blame may rest in various dosages on oil-producing companies, domestic oil-refining companies, domestic auto manufacturers, domestic auto manufacturers’ lobbyists, government officials so susceptible to the pressure by lobbyists, and to us — the consumers who thought we could spend big money for big vehicles that get horrible fuel economy, and who quite angrily defend their right to use all the fuel we want.
Solutions seem pretty bleak. We claim we want huge vehicles for safety and security, although we’d all be more safe and secure if everybody had cars instead. Sure, gas might still be expensive, but a 30-mpg Focus or Echo or Sephia or Saturn, or Excel — to say nothing of a 70-mpg Honda Insight — could get you through the week a lot more happily than an 11-mpg gas-guizzler. We could be headed for a point where hundreds of thousands of consumers will try to buy economy cars, while selling their SUVs and trucks, filling the used-vehicle market with a glut of inexpensive, lightly used trucks. That would leave dealerships with yards full of gas-guzzlers, which would be awful for the dealers and manufacturers. And it might even make the manufacturers produce more responsible vehicles.
What will it take to get you agitated? Maybe $3-a-gallon gas? How about $5? Six months ago, that seemed ridiculous. But a year ago, $2-per-gallon seemed far-fetched. Stay tuned.
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