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.
(cutlines for corvette-viper columns…)
Photos by John Gilbert, Up North Newspaper Network
[corvette z06Â…]
1/ A German cruise ship might swiftly cruise Lake Superior, but not as swiftly as the 2001 Corvette Z06 cruises on land.
2/ One of over 100 ceremonial Snoopy statues in St. Paul seemed elated to see the new Corvette Z06.
3/ The Z06 engine produces 385 horsepower and 385 foot-pounds of torque to the new Corvette model.
4/ Only a small badge, rear-brake air scoop and special alloy wheels differentiate the Z06 from other Corvettes.
[viper rt/10Â…]
1/ Every contour of Dodge’s Viper RT/10 indicates it is an exotic and powerful way to sail the freeways.
2/ A Viper meets with open-armed approval of the Minnesota Wild’s Snoopy, part of St. Paul’s tribute to the late Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz.
3/ The monstrous 8-liter V10 in the Viper produces 450 horsepower and 495 foot-pounds of torque for the industry’s best powre-to-weight ratio.
4/ As the sun sets, the Viper’s lights add an almost eerie quality to the powerful roadster.
Civic Si is a budget sporty coupe bargain, but not for 2001
The annual new-model changeover is always an interesting time in the auto world, but the changes aren’t always for the best for everybody. Honda is going to bring out a totally redesigned Civic for 2001, and it undoubtedly will be improved in many ways. But one of the changes is that there will no longer be a Civic Si for 2001.
Honda may be unexcelled when it comes to tacking advanced technology on its vehicles, but the last time they changed Civic models was in 1995, and one of the “improvements” was to make the hood less streamlined, and to eliminate four-wheel disc brakes on the top EX model. To me, that was a way of cost-cutting that was unbecoming a technology leader.
During the model run just ended, Honda became aware that a whole bunch of youthful hot-rodders, starting on the West Coast, were taking Civics and fiddling with high-performance computer chips, modifying the suspension, and adding neat wheels and ultra-low-profile tires and building hod-rod versions for street use. Finally, Honda responded and brought out the “Si” model, which, of course, means “Yes!” in Spanish.
The “Yes!” is appropriate, whether you’re responding to the speed, the cornering, the stopping or the price tag of the Si — which is $17,545, fully equipped.
When I had a chance to test-drive the 2000 Si model, it was as impressive as anticipated, and it was natural to assume it would be better, somehow, in 2001. I never anticipated that it would be eliminated.
For 2000, the Si model takes the basic Honda 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine and turns it into a screamer with engineering borrowed from Formula 1 and CART racing success. The all-aluminum engine adds dual-overhead camshafts instead of single overhead cam, plus revised VTEC (variable valve-timing) to allow more intake and thus more power-making potential. The basic Civic engine has 106 horsepower, and is upgraded to 127 in standard Civic VTEC form, while the Si version is boosted to a whopping 160-horsepower, with 111-foot-pounds of torque.
The horsepower peaks at 7,600 RPMs, and the torque peaks at 7,000 revs — meaning both peak levels are attained at a tachometer reading higher than the 6,500 redline of the 2001 Corvette Z06. But fear not, because the Si tachometer redline is at 8,000 RPMs.
The 5-speed manual shifter holds onto those revs and applies the power properly to the street through front-wheel drive, and the handling and brakes also are suitable for boasting.
The handling comes from independent, double-wishbone suspension has coil springs that are 25 percent stiffer than the EX, with a larger front stabilizer bar. Gas-charged struts all around with Honda’s progressive valve damping rates keep the Si flatter and more stable no matter how enthusiastically you want to hurl it around corners. A support bar across the strut towers further aids rigidity.
The Si is set off by its front spoiler, side sills and subtle graphics, and the special wheels are 15 inches in diameter, and they conceal four-wheel disc brakes that are both larger and more proficient at stopping the little coupe.
Inside, the Si has the usual air-conditioning, plus a moonroof with a tilt feature, and power windows, door locks and outside mirrors, with keyless remote, cruise control and intermittent wipers. It is set apart from its siblings by a leather-wrapped steering wheel and shift knob, amber instrument lights and special graphics, plus two-tone seat fabric. An AM-FM-CD player also is standard.
Like all Civics, the Si earned a four-star rating in government crash tests, and while the Si is a small portion of overall Civic sales, the line is the top-selling marquee in the compact segment.
Driving the Si is a lot of fun, but it is just enough distance from perfect for us to anticipate the next version. The five-speed does its job very well, but it needs either better ratios or a sixth gear. The problem is the close-ratio transmission extracts maximum power all the way up through the gears, but when you go to cruise on a freeway trip, you find yourself running at 4,000 RPMs at cruising speed.
Now, 4,000 revs isn’t bad when you have a limit of 8,000, but different gearing or sixth gear could leave you at 2,500 revs or so, and mean that the jewel of an engine would be loafing instead of working even halfway to the limit. As it is, you can get up to the EPA estimate of 31 miles per gallon on the highway (26 city) if you can avoid the temptation to redline it in first and second, but altered gearing could put you closer to 40.
Preliminary word on the new 2001 model Civic is that the platform has been stiffened considerably, but that the double-wishbone suspension is gone, as is the Si model. Perhaps the stiffer chassis negates the need for the race-bred double-wishbones, but, once again, it doesn’t seem progressive for a technology leader.
Undoubtedly the 2001 will be a big seller, and full of worthy features, but if you want as much fun as $17,000 can buy, you’ll need the Si model. And for that, you’ll have to chase down a 2000 model.
[[[[[CUTLINES:
(Â…aztekÂ…)
1/ The “unusual” look of the Pontiac Aztek can be overcome by clever interior features and a moderate $25,000 sticker price.
2/ A tall, multi-decked grille makes the Aztek seem taller than it is, and soft suspension makes it comfortable but less stable in cornering.
3/ Inside, the seat upholstery has a dizzying pattern, but Pontiac-style instruments, an advanced heads-up display and a removable console/cooler are welcome features.
4/ Available in a camping package, the Aztek can be purchased with a tent appendage that turns the vehicle into a hybrid mini-motorhome.
(Â…Honda Civic SiÂ…)
1/ The Si model will disappear from the revised Civic line for 2001, at least temporarily.
2/ Special wheels, suspension, and a high-revving VTEC 4-cylinder makes the Civic Si a budget sports-coupe.
For a ‘batty’ education on vacation, head for Austin’s city limits
There are pleasure trips and there are business trips, but the best business trips can end up being extremely pleasurable, if you stay alert to capitalize on opportunities. It happened to me, on an auto introduction trip to Austin, Texas.
Austin is the Texas state capitol, home of the University of Texas, and it’s a musical mecca with “Austin City Limits” and an endless stream of bars and nightclubs with live music spilling out from open doors that attract full houses nightly, plus lots of museums, a dazzling state capitol building made of native pink granite, and the Lyndon Baines Johnson library and museum. Austin also is known as the entry point to the famous Texas Hill Country, where you can find the LBJ ranch amid other enormous ranches and stereotypical small towns a short drive away, over wonderfully twisting roadways.
All of those are tourist attractions, but all compete for only support status on my list of reasons to fly to Texas for a trip. The top attraction was revealed to me by surprise, when I was one of a hundred or so automotive journalists had been assembled at the Four Seasons Hotel downtown, right on the bank of the Colorado River, which meanders through Austin. A Chrysler public relations type mentioned that one of the most astonishing things he had ever witnessed would be occurring at sundown, which happened to be shortly after a press conference/dinner would have started in a ballroom just inside.
“Bats,” he said. “Thousands of bats will fly down the river at sunset.”
Right. I was about to suggest something about this fellow’s belfry, whatever that is, but he was serious. Now, bats have never been high on my list of favorite things, although that was mainly because I knew nothing about them, except what I had seen in some silly attempts at scary movies. Nevertheless, I told him that regardless of what would be served for dinner, and the seriousness of the information being divulged, to come and get me when it happened, and I brought my camera.
Sure enough, right about the time I was finishing my salad, I got a tap on the shoulder. I grabbed the camera and ran out on the hotel balcony. Looking southward, across the river, it looked as though there must be several grass fires upstream, because three or four long, horizontal columns of smoke were wafting from right to left, above the river. The columns of smoke were undulating and flowing smoothly, and then I realized why.
It was not smoke, but bats. Hundreds of thousands of bats. I shot hastily, firing off a couple frames at the wrong exposure, before my guide told me to relax, that it would continue for 5 or 10 minutes. So I shot some at various stops on the zoom lens, up to 200 mm.
It was incredible. These are Mexican Free-Tailed bats, one of 42 known species of bats in North America, 32 of which can be found in Texas. There as many as 1.5 million of them that live under a bridge, just upstream from our hotel, and every night at sunset they all fly out from their nesting areas, zooming off in the kind of orderly procession traffic-control engineers probably were hoping for when they established that single-file roadblock out to 40th Avenue East on London Road. They fly off in formation, and then apparently scatter. Every morning, by sunrise, they mysteriously wind up back home — just like George Hamilton.
Still, bats are creepy, right? Wrong, my once-mosquito-bitten northern transplant explained. Bats eat insects, and, the fellow said, you will notice that you are never bothered by mosquitoes or other nuisance insects in Austin, or in any other areas where a lot of bats reside. Bats consume crop pests. Such as cutworm and cornborer moths, potato beetles, and grasshoppers, but mosquitoes are a favorite. At its peak in annual number, the Austin bats can consume 25,000 tons of insects in a single night. It makes you wonder how an increase in our bat population might affect our Up North mosquitoes, black flies, gnats and chiggers.
It turns out bats are not the disease-ridden rodents many of us believe, and while a minute number of diseased bats might be found, the percentage is no worse than other wild mammals. Bats are very clean, not at all related to the mice their bodies resemble, and they groom themselves constantly during the day, when they’re hanging out — literally — in their bat-caves, so to speak. Not only are bats not blind, they see very well, and also have a sonar system called “echo-location” that helps them navigate in the dark and aids their quick, darting flight capabilities in finding and catching tiny, flying insects. Bats also are credited with a large percentage of pollination and seed dispersal for forests and fruit plants.
There are larger colonies of bats than Austin. San Antonio, which is a perfect day-trip south of Austin by car, has a colony of 20 million Mexican Free-Tailed bats, which contributes to the story behind the Austin bats. Back around 1900, Dr. Charles A. Campbell, a San Antonoio physician, was alarmed about a malaria outbreak, transmitted by mosquitoes, and he was convinced bats could control the bugs. So he designed and built some towers that attracted 250,000 bats as residents. The mosquitoes were wiped out, as was the malaria, and the good doctor ended up nominated for a Nobel Prize, and the Texas state legislature passed a law making it a misdemeanor to kill bats.
Austin, the state capitol, caught on and is now the center for bat research. In 1980, the Congress Avenue Bridge over the Colorado River was renovated, and the bridge was purposely built with slots an inch wide and 16 inches deep, calculated to provide optimum temperature and humidity for bats. Female Mexican Free-Tailed bats migrate to the bridge in March, they give birth to a single pup each in June. The males form in smaller colonies elsewhere, in caves, mines or other buildings.
The babies pack together in a cluster of 500 per square foot to stay warm at night while their moms are out hunting insects. The moms return to nurse the young, which grow rapidly and can fly in about five weeks. As summer ends, about this time of year, the males and other area bats join the colony under the Congress Bridge, swelling the number of residents from 750,000 to 1.5 million, and in November they migrate south to Mexico.
One other fascinating fact is that the fellow who tipped me off about the bats said that when he was first informed of them, he went out on the riverbank pathway, which is lined with signs filled with information about bats, and waited. The sun set, and there were no bats. He was perturbed, then laughed at himself for being the victim of a version of the legendary “snipe hunt” prank. The next night, at a nearby restaurant, he happened to look out the window and saw the bats. It turns out, the bats fly every night at sunset, except one night each month, when they don’t fly.
So if you’re looking for a vacation trip, Austin is a great spot, for all the museums, wandering along music row, or attending Austin City Limits. But reserve your time at sunset, and find a good vantage point along the river, downstream from the Congress Avenue Bridge. It’s worth the trip.
[[[[[CUTLINES:
Photos by John Gilbert
1/ At sunset every night — ALMOST every night — hundreds of thousands of bats fill the downtown sky at Austin, Texas, making sure visitors never need to swat mosquitoes.
2/ Austin’s bat population is so valuable, a downtown bridge was built with special grooves to house up to 1.5 million of the world’s most misunderstood mammal. ]]]]]]
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