Cell-phones, other distractions, can disrupt driver’s attention
It will be interesting to see how far the legislation goes in this session’s attempt to make it illegal to use a cell phone while driving a vehicle.
Driving while talking on a cell is not a major problem Up North, where traffic congestion is not all that bad, but it is indeed a problem in the Twin Cities, where drivers routinely run stop signs, fail to signal, cut you off, go too fast or too slow, change lanes without warning, and do all sorts of mindless things — while focusing their attention on the cell phone conversation.
I drive a lot, and I must admit I use a cell phone quite a bit, including sometimes when I’m driving. But I think some common sense rules might be able to be submitted before we find ourselves being legislated into a cul-de-sac.
Personally, I have a rule of self-imposed discipline that whenever I’m driving and either I need to make a call or someone calls me, that my driving still takes clearcut priority over whatever is going on on the cell phone. If I’m approaching an intersection where I must turn left, for example, I will excuse myself from the call long enough to turn on the directional light, which only takes about two seconds, then you’re back to the phone call.
Also, one of the steps that should become mandatory in car-cell phone conversations is a hands-free device, a little earphone that plugs into the cell phone on one end, and into your ear on the other. These are amazing little things, because the microphone is built into the ear piece, and it will pick up your voice even without any sort of microphone near your mouth.
The whole point here is to reduce, if not eliminate, the amount of distraction that cell-phoning causes to your driving. If you find you’re giving the call priority over your driving, then you are a menace on the road, and you should consider turning off your cell phone when you get behind the wheel. It’s an easy test to self-administer. Just pay attention to how many times you figuratively cut a corner while phoning.
Do you skip the turn signal? Do you let the car wander to the adjacent lane and back, because you’re phoning? Do you speed up, and wind up tailgating the car that just passed you, a mile back, when you were going slower? Do you find that you’re going right on through a stop sign or traffic light because stopping might cause you to interrupt your call or take the phone away from your ear?
If you answered yes to any one of those questions, you should get rid of the phone, or turn it off.
The problem with trying to make such a thing a new law is that cell phone use is just one — albeit the latest one — of an assortment of dangerous distractions that can affect anyone’s driving.
Eating: Maybe it’s a sandwich, or a candy bar, or a drive-through hamburger, or a sack of peanuts, or — my favorite — a resealable plastic bag filled with fresh veggies, such as carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, celery, and red, green and yellow peppers. Great way to pass the time on a long trip, but make sure the bag is right there on the console, or adjacent seat, so you can grab the next tidbit without taking your eyes off the road.
Drinking: A thermal mug of coffee, or tea, or a bottle or can of pop, or a bottle of water, stashed in one of the dozen cupholders you might have, can be a great benefit to keeping you alert and wide awake on trips, or it can get you going on the way to work. But be careful, because nothing can cause you to make a little swerve as much as spilling a small dose of hot coffee down into your lap.
Audio systems: You want to turn on the radio, change stations, adjust the bass or the volume or the fader, or put in a new CD or tape cassette. But it’s almost impossible to do it effectively without glancing repeatedly at the audio slot. The trick for success is to glance briefly, while maintaining your primary focus on the road and your control of your vehicle.
Reading: Glancing at notes, or a map, or — I’ve actually seen this — reading a magazine or a textbook, yes, while driving, is alarming and can cause you to waver in guiding your car’s trajectory or failing to notice that SUV pulling out ahead of you. Bring something to read if you have a codriver, and read it only when you are in the passenger seat — not driving.
Groping: You meant to bring a certain notepad, or pen, and you think it might be in that jacket you’ve stashed in the back seat, so you reach back there and, while keeping an eye on the road, you reach back and try to grope for the inside pocket for that pen. You work at it so hard that when you get back to putting both hands on the steering wheel you realize you’ve slowed 15 miles per hour and are now followed by a dozen cars in intervals separated by inches.
Smoking: Cigarettes will kill you, although not as swiftly as a car can. A cigar can keep you cruising and wide awake, if you don’t inhale, and if you can stand having the window open an inch when it’s 10 below. A pipe can work well, because it can last a half-hour and doesn’t need tending, but again you want to not inhale, or else you could be replacing one risk with another one. If you have the habit, be careful. Lighting up with a match is a trick, because it pretty well requires both hands, and another sure-fire (sorry about the pun) way to lose focus as well as control of your car is to realize that a very hot ash is no longer where you thought it was and you realize it must be down there, burning a hole in your pants, or the seat.
Conversation: Sometimes merely talking to someone who is riding with you can become an argument or fiery conversation that can cause you to become more engrossed in the discussion than in downshifting.
Daydreaming: Getting lost in thoughts or reveries while driving can make the time pass, but also can dull your senses to what’s going on around you. Same with sleepiness. Mental focus is important to your driving, and there are so many things that can happen fast in front of you, or to you, that you shouldn’t allow yourself to drift away mentally when there’s traffic or possibly a controlled intersection around.
I’m guilty of several of these minor infractions — but never at the expense of affecting my driving as priority. If you can discipline yourself to doing something that doesn’t require a lot of attention while you’re driving, you’re probably OK. But we can’t encourage it.
Still, all of those other examples of potential distractions are no more or no less hazardous than cell phones. It’s just that we’ve become accustomed to seeing somebody pull out right in front of you, or failing to grant the right-of-way, or going through a red light or stop sign, and then noticing the driver is on a cell-phone, clearly oblivious that the rest of the world is still out there.
So cell phones are an easy target, and vulnerable. Any distraction to driving can be dangerous, but I would guess that most of the folks who are outspoken about eliminating cell-phone use in cars are folks who don’t have cell phones themselves. And those who would be quick to vote for a law to make cell-phone use illegal had better be prepared to also penalize the numerous other types of distractions.
Same old Grand Am gets better with GT1 trim for 2001 challenge
The Pontiac Grand Am is a unique example of how, when an automobile manufacturer gets something right, it might make sense to stick with it.
The Grand Am has baffled experts in recent years by continuing to lead all General Motors divisions in car-specific sales, even though Chevrolet, Buick and Oldsmobile — remember Oldsmobile? — has an almost-identical vehicle to sell, with exterior and interior differences only.
Some experts said they couldn’t understand how the Grand Am kept on selling, while the Olds Alero floundered. One national columnist practically raged at consumers, saying why would they buy a Grand Am when they could have an Alero? My view of the matter was the reverse; why would anyone buy an Alero, with its clean, clear lines, when they could buy a Grand Am, with its swoopy, gimmick-filled boy-racer styling?
Here it is 2001 and Oldsmobile is ceasing to exist, Alero and all, while the Grand Am continues to set the pace for Pontiac specifically and for GM in general. So to speak.
Last week I got a chance to revisit a Grand Am, this one being a factory press-fleet 4-door sedan, but the GT1 version, which is a sportier upgrade over the standard Grand Am.
The test vehicle comes equipped with the aging 3400 V6, now called the “Ram Air” 3400. It has 170 horsepower and 200 foot-pounds of torque, and its sound has been improved to render a throatier, husky sound when you tromp on the gas pedal. It runs through the familiar GM 4-speed automatic transmission, and it accelerates with gusto and delivers adequate fuel economy, 21 city and 32 highway by EPA estimates, slightly less than that in real life.
From the outside, the Grand Am GT1 is definitely on the swoopy side. Pontiac has bothered some purists, but obviously impressed many, many more consumers by tacking on side cladding with raised rib lines running fore to aft between the wheelwells. That theme is carried out all around the GT1, with the color-coordinated lower front fascia housing foglights, and tapering around the corners with those familiar rib lines, and the rear carries out the same theme with the large taillights even sporting those raised ribs, and a rib-accented spoiler mounted atop the trunklid.
From my viewpoint, the Grand Am has evolved into a classic by borrowing liberally from the sleek, racy look of the Firebird, which annually is rumored to being discontinued, and from the Bonneville, which long has stood among the top U.S. sports sedans. The GT suspension package is firmer than the standard Grand Am, and it has 4-wheel disc brakes with antilock.
While performance is good, and handling is stable and precise, both are refined to be good for everyday driving for anyone who wants a sportier edge to their mundane transportation. It is not going to blow away any true high-performance cars, any you’d want to avoid any confrontations with the hottest sporty coupes from Japan or Germany, but it is more than adequate. And, it gives off the image that it’s hotter than it needs to be, or than it actually is.
It would be fantastic if General Motors would stick the new 3.5-liter V6 out of the Intrigue into the Grand Am, and maybe offered a stick shift or at least an auto-stick shifter on top, but there’s no sign of that. But if you’re going to have the latest version of a 30-year-old motor — it began life as the Chevrolet 2.8-liter V6 — at least this one comes wrapped in a fun interior and exterior.
Inside, the GT1 package takes the standard Grand Am look and amplifies it. The standard look is contoured tops undulating over the speedometer and tachometer, and again to house the center dash panel, which has an impressive Monsoon audio system, with 20-some switches allowing every which adjustment for the AM, FM, CD player and tape deck. If that seems complicated, audio-types won’t think so, especially when they kick up the subwoofer, and besides, right under it there is the wonderfully simple heat-air control panel, with three twisting knobs for fan, temperature and vent selection.
Above and beyond the standard-issue Grand Am, the GT1 package, which is included in the base price of the model at $21,805, has cruise control, power windows and mirrors and driver seat, split folding rear seat, a sport interior with upgraded seat design, leather wrapped steering wheel, shift knob and parking brake hand grip, driver seat lumbar adjustment, reading and courtesy lamps, trunk storage net, and pockets on the front bucket seat backs.
That’s good for rear seat occupants, who will find surprisingly adequate room in the rear, at least in the 4-door version. The lines of the Grand Am are such that the 4-door looks just as racy as the coupe, because all those horizontal lines are simply extended on the 4-door.
Also on the GT1 package, remote radio controls on the pleasingly pudgy steering wheel, which also has the cruise switches, and remote keyless entry, the Monsoon upgraded 8-speaker stereo system, a glass power sunroof, and the rear lid spoiler come at the standard GT1 upgrade price.
In addition, the test car came with a package that consists of 16-inch alloy wheels, and leather seat covering, at $1,200. By some stroke of corporate logic, that $1,200 package has a $320 rebate, so it runs the whole sticker up to $23,180. Yes, for that amount of money you can buy some pretty good competitive vehicles with higher-tech engines and futuristic features, but the Grand Am has become an American icon, so we aren’t arguing.
The tires are high-performance more than snow-ready, but with front-wheel drive you can get by very well. The automatic has an enhanced traction control system, and the keyless entry has an anti-lockout setup so you can’t get out without being gonged for leaving the key in the ignition.
The Grand Am is enjoyable to drive, even if you push it hard around corners, and the only thing it lacks is fulfillment of the high-performance promise that its sporty looks over.
I have a friend whose wife has driven Grand Ams for years. Every two or three years they talk to me about all the new hot stuff on the market, and the array of alternatives gets more impressive every year, but they keep going back and swapping for another new Grand Am.
Can’t argue with their choice. There are Jettas and Toyotas and Hondas and Mitsubishis and Nissans and Mazdas and Acuras and all sorts of other things out there that can lure customers, but with the Grand Am, the more things change, the more the Grand Am stays the same — and keeps on satisfying customers.
[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The Grand Am GT1 looks ready to launch as it sits in the early morning sun, with its swoopy lines and boy-racer body cladding.
2/ The rear end, with its four exhaust tubes and uplifted rear topped by a spoiler, completes the racy look of the Grand Am GT1.
3/ Everything is familiar inside, with GT1 package audio controls at both thumbs and cruise settings on the bottom of the steering wheel, and the instruments and controls all in their places.
4/ The gauges have a warm, red glow to them at night, although you probably won’t need all 150 markings on the speedometer.
5/ The built-in foglights are useful for spreading the light onto the shoulders, and add to the mystique of the GT1.
Mercedes makes a better-handling rocket disguised as an SUV
It was almost as if somebody at Mercedes-Benz was reading my mail. Or at least my columns. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how impressive it was that the new Mercury Mountaineer, and presumably the new Ford Explorer being introduced for 2002 had revised their chassis and handling so extensively that in a test I drove in proved they were flatter through the turns than such impressive sport-utility vehicles as the Mercedes ML430.
It seemed an amazing irony that the Germans could have gone so far toward trying to give American buyers the softer ride they prefer that now the stiffest-handling SUVs would come from Ford.
Presto! A test vehicle arrived and it had a definite serious demeanor. It was a Mercedes ML55 AMG. Now, I only recently had reported on the very impressive ML430, which is the Mercedes SUV equipped with a 4.3-liter single-overhead-cam V8, and it was extremely impressive, because it has so much more power than the standard 3.2-liter SOHC V6.
Over in Germany, there is this hot-rod outfit called AMG, and for years they have been taking Mercedes sedans and coupes and fixing them up, power and suspension, as if the standard 150-mph autobahn cruisers weren’t strong enough. Mercedes has now corralled AMG into a subsidiary that is out of the closet, taking those world-class runners and improving upon them.
So it was just a matter of time that Mercedes would take the M430 SUV and turn it over to the lads from AMG. Sure enough, they’ve come up with the ultimate hot-rod SUV. With the competition out there including the BMW X5, and the new Audi allroad quattro, Mercedes couldn’t stand to have just a high-performing SUV. It had to recalculate to make it rise to the top superlatives in every category.
The AMG treatment includes body work, with high-intensity foglights built into the lower bumper molding, 18-inch wheels on stiffened suspension, a few interior upgrades for uniqueness, andÂ…under the hoodÂ…a huge jewel of an engine.
The ML55 disposes of the 4.3-liter V8 with its potent 268 horses and 288 foot-pounds of torque, and takes on a 5.5-liter V8 which AMG has jacked up to an almost incomprehensible 342 horsepower and 376 foot-pounds of torque.
That engine, dispensing its power to all four wheels all the time, is mated to a 5-speed automatic that you can shift manually without a clutch, or you can stuff it in “D” and let it do the shifting, smoothly and effortlessly.
Either way, you rocket from 0-60 in something less than 6.5 seconds, which would be good for a Porsche or a Corvette or some other racy sports car with too much power, and which, in an SUV, should require a separate license.
Inside, the seats are special, very firm, and the instrumentation is classy, with dark italic numerals on a light background, while the steering wheel, with its real wood and real leather in concert, sets off an entirely upgraded passenger compartment.
Going back to the basic ML320 with the V6, it costs about $33,000 and delivers a strong V6, permanent 4-wheel drive, fully independent suspension, and the best safety crash-test results in the industry. That’s with 215 horsepower and 233 foot-pounds of torque. The ML430 shoots the price up to around $50,000, but for those who like power, it’s probably worth it.
But the AMG version, the ML55, puts the money up around $67,000 fully loaded.
You probably wouldn’t want to go crashing through the underbrush and over trails in this beauty, although it seems willing, if you wanted to, with its skid-plate underside and the high stance on those huge wheels (the basic ML320 and ML430 have 17-inch wheels, and the ML55 goes to 18-inchers).
But if you had the money, and you wanted to be able to at least argue with any SUV compatriots that you had the ultimate one-upmanship SUV, the Mercedes ML55 would be the one to buy.
And, yes, the ML55 stays so flat around tight turns that for sure, I’d like to redo that handling test around the autocross course with the new Mountaineer and Explorer. The ML55, however, would probably prefer to take the test around Nurburgring.
[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ The foglights are a subtle indication that this Mercedes SUV is the ML55 — the AMG upgraded 342-horsepower SUV that will go 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds, for boat-trailer haulers in a real hurry.
2/ A classy upgraded interior sets off the ML55 from the very nice ML430, and it’s the least you’d expect for $67,000. ]]]]]]]
Consumer Reports 20-year data verifies ratings, improvement
As an avid follower of all things automotive, it is always fun to read magazines and articles pertdaining to the automotive business, and in that vein, one of the more thorough publications available every year is making its appearance right now — the annual auto edition of Consumer Reports magazine.
The April issue has all sorts of information on the 2001 model year, as well as on 2002 models recently, or about to be, introduced.
Twenty years ago, Consumer Reports and autos didn’t always blend well. There was a time I recall the magazine criticizing the Corvette for inadequate rear seat room. It was true, of course. It also was true that the Corvette didn’t even HAVE a rear seat. The same magazine also test-drove a sporty Mustang and reported that it had outstanding acceleration, fantastic brakes, and the best emergency handling characteristics of anything they had tested, and yet they said not to consider buying one because of its sporty image.
Whether you think some of their reports are too stodgy, too conservative, and not always quick to recognize the all-important fun factor in driving, it always has some thought-provoking information. The automobile business has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, and Consumer Reports has matured very well in the same time span. One of its best features is assembling criticism about all sorts of things on all sorts of cars and compiling that data into frequency-of-repair rates for virtually every vehicle you can find.
Every five years, CR analyzes all its survey data, which provides a great base for comparison. This time around, it is truly impressive, because for the first time in its history, CR can go back a fyull two decades and compare problems and therefore reliability of 2.5 million responses, covering all cars available in the U.S.
Now, we know that automobiles have become more reliable and more trouble-free. We also know that we face a barrage of advertising, public relations snow-jobs, and lobbyist-inspired government stances on cars and laws. While getting the opportunity to test-drive about 100 cars a year for 25 years, some things are very obvious. I’ve about how U.S. car-makers fell behind the Germans in craftsmanship, and then fell way behind the Japanese in technology, cost and reliability. That was written without prejudice — I always hope every car is high-tech and impressive — but it generated considerable scorn from those who either are prejudiced or have an ax to grind.
Still, those were seat-of-the-pants opinions, filtered by unique interview sessions with engineers, designers and public-relations types. I had no way to measure what consumers would say about personal problems with their cars. So Consumer Reports has done that, and remember, CR accepts no advertising from auto companies, so it doesn’t compromise its objectivity because of a 4-page, multi-color spread on page 28, if you know what I mean.
Here is an overview of the findings in Consumer Reports’ analysis:
In 1980, the average rate of for all new vehicles was 88 problems for every 100 cars. As of 2000, that rate had dropped to 20 — an impressive 77 percent improvement.
Problem rates for U.S. (GM, Ford, Chrysler) vehicles dropped from 105 problems in 1980 to 23 in 2000. Problem rates for European cars sold in the U.S. dropped from 50 to 20 per 100 vehicles. The rate for Japanese vehicles dropped from an average of 34 to an average of 11.
Over those 20 years, Chrysler cars have been slightly more reliable overall than vehicles from Ford and General Motors. BMW and Mercedes-Benz have been the most reliable European vehicles. The Japanese companies have been far more consistent, therefore showing less improvement, but Nissan, Honda and Subaru showed the greatest improvement in problem rate.
In the truck department, Japanese-made trucks had only a tiny share of the market in 1980, but improved from 41 problems per 100 vehicles to a mere 16 for the 2000 model year. U.S. nameplates improved from 102 complaints per 100 vehicles to 23. Individually, Ford pickups were the most troublesome in 1980, but improved 86 percent to 16 problems, ranking second only to Toyota’s 13. GM’s problems per 100 trucks improved from 107 in 1980 to 26 in 2000, while Chrysler’s trucks went from 40 to 26 problems per 100.
In SUVs, the U.S. had the only ones with enough sales to compile data in 1980, but the data wasn’t good — a rating of 138 problems per 100 vehicles. Japanese SUVs were just coming into the marketplace then, but they reflected the tradition of good workmanship by having only 16 problems per 100 SUVs in 1980, and have improved to 9 in 2000.
Japanese nameplate SUVs have now surpassed Japanese cars as being the most trouble-free vehicles on the road, and the Honda CR-V ranks as the most reliable vehicle in the survey of all 2000-year models.
The Ford F150, annually the top-selling vehicle in the U.S., was one of the worst for problems in 1980, but now ranks as the most reliable product among all Ford vehicles in 2000.
In CR’s ranking of the most reliable vehicles for 2000, the top vehicles were, in order, 1. Infiniti, 2. Lexus, 3. Acura, 4. Honda, 5. Toyota, 6. Nissan, 7. Subaru, 8. Mazda, 9. BMW, 10. Mercury, 11. Ford, 12. Volvo, 13. Chrysler, 14. Volkswagen, 15. Plymouth, 16. Saturn, 17. Dodge, 18. Audi, 19. Buick, 20. Mercedes-Benz, 21. Oldsmobile, 22. Cadillac, 23. Pontiac, 24. Lincoln, 25. Chevrolet, 26. GMC, 27. Jaguar, and 28. Jeep.
CR also lists charts to show how much the problem areas have changed. In 1980, fuel systems, electrical systems, and body rust were the three clear leaders among the 15 categories in problems, with body integrity a strong fourth. In 2000, body rust is the least-named problem among those 15, and fuel systems had dropped to seventh, while electrical system problems had dropped almost in half but still were the primary trouble spot, followed closely by brake systems, then hardware, body integrity and suspension.
Consumer Reports also has accompanying articles on a variety of other automotive records, and it has its own safety and performance tests. Another indication of how impressive CR does its job these days is that its safety tests show crashworthiness by pounding the cars into barriers, but it now adds a factor for accident avoidance, which has long been my major emphasis on driving safety. A car that can avoid an accident in 95 percent of the cases makes its occupants far safer than a car that might be heavier and more crashworthy, but in which avoidance capabilities almost make accidents inevitable.
The magazine’s breakdown in crash protection shows the best among small cars is the Volkswagen Golf, Honda Civic, Volkswagen Jetta and Volkswagen New Beetle; tied for the worst were the Kia Sephia, Pontiac Sunfire and Chevrolet Cavalier.
Among intermediate-size family cars, the top two were the Volkswagen Passat and Chevrolet Impala, with 13 more models about tied behind them with impressively high test results; the worst rating went to the Daewoo Leganza, with next-to-worst crash barrier test scores to Pontiac Grand Am, Oldsmobile Alero, Buick Regal, Saturn LS1, Oldsmobile Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix.
Among large and upscale cars, the Volvo S80, Lincoln LS, Toyota Avalon, Lincoln Town Car and Mercury Grand Marquis tied for the best in crash-barrier tests alone, while the worst wre the Buick Park Avenue, Ford Crown Victoria, Pontiac Bonneville, Acura 3.2TL, Oldsmobile Aurora and Lexus ES300. It must be pointed out, however, that all the crash tests of the largest cars were good to very good, this was just the pecking order.
In accident avoidance, however, there was quite a different tale. Among small cars, the best were the Civic, Toyota Celica, Ford Focus and Chrysler Neon; the worst were the Kia Sephia and Saturn SL2. Among medium cars, the best at avoidance was the Passat, while the worst was a lengthy list of Daewoo Leganza, Grand Am, Alero, Regal, Saturn LS1, Dodge Intrepid, Mazda 626, Subaru Legacy, Mercury Sable and Ford Taurus. Among large cars, the best at handling agility was the Volvo S80, Lincoln LS, Avalon, ES300, Aurora, Lincoln Town Car andAcura 3.2TL — but none was as good as the best-handling medium or small cars in accident avoidance. Worst among large cars were the Buick Park Avenue, Grand Marquis, Crown Vic, and Bonneville.
Taking it even beyond that, the overall combined crash and avoidance tests were ranked in various categories. The best upscale and large cars were the Infiniti I30 and Buick LeSabre; among minivans, the Honda Odyssey, followed closely by the Toyota Sienna and Ford Windstar. For small SUVs, the Subaru Forester was No. 1, solidly. For midsized SUVs, the Mercedes-Benz ML430 was far and away the best, with the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Xterra next. For pickup trucks, the Ford F150 was best, followed by the Ford Ranger and Mazda B4000 (the same vehicle, now), with the Toyota Tacoma next.
That’s only a taste of the April Consumer Reports, but all that information and surveying is compelling stuff to ponder, when you’re looking at buying a new or used car. The ads make everything sound exceptional, but you can’t fool the owners.
Montero Sport impressive alternative for Montero, other SUVs
The seemingly endless proliferation of sport-utility vehicles has filled showrooms and roadways with a lot of large, useful vehicles of all sorts of sizes and shapes. Just about the time you figure you’ve seen all the SUVs you could ever imagine, something new shows up to capture your fancy.
The Mitsubishi Montero Sport is not all that new, but it is Mitsubishi’s most recent venture into the SUV market. Among all the highly competitive Japanese automotive companies, Mitsubishi is decidedly toward the high-technology end. Cars like the Galant and Mirage and the Eclipse sports coupe, plus the Diamante have always put the company up at the forefront of technology.
For example, in 1971, Mitsubishi engineers developed a system of running a rod horizontally through the engine block, and spinning it off a belt so it rotated opposite of the crankshaft. As if by magic, the device — known as the “Silent Shaft” — nullified the harmonic vibration inherent in all 4-cylinder engines because of the travel of the crankshaft. And electronically, the company benefited by making outstanding electronics, such as television sets.
Mitsubishi also made the Montero long before U.S. buyers discovered their need (want?) for SUVs. Monteros were ideal for running across barren countryside, and proved to be sturdy, hardy and evidence that you can take high-tech off the road in places where roads have never been considered.
That allowed Mitsubishi to plug in quite well as the SUV craze developed. The Montero, in fact, was a subject for this column a few months ago, when it was introduced as an all-new, upgraded model. It remains one of the kings of the off-road, so to speak, and does a luxurious job of handling the on-road duties.
But a few years ago, Mitsubishi realized that a whole new culture in the U.S. wanted SUVs but didn’t necessarily need them. In other words, the new breed of SUV buyers wanted to buy SUVs to replace station wagons and/or minivans, and going off-road was barely on the horizon.
Hence, the Montero Sport was born. It was lower, more stable on the road, and considerably sleeker looking. For 2001, the Montero Sport has a freshened face and expanded appeal as the SUV market continues to spread out. The flexibility of the Montero Sport is bolstered by the fact that Mitsubishi never allowed it to “just” be a wagon-replacement, and it always made it durable and tough enough to take care of what Up North drivers consider off-roading — going to the lake, pulling a boat trailer, exploring rugged, woodsy terrain, etc.
The Montero Sport has evolved to having a nicely styled exterior, with a bold front end and sculptured sides with flared wheelwell openings. It can now be had in an assortment of versions, from ES to LS to XLS, to Limited and Limited XS, which can make the price range from $23,000 to over $32,000. The test vehicle was up there, because it had the Limited package with all the goodies. That starts off with the 3.5-liter V6 as an upgrade over the standard 3.0.
Both V6 engines are smooth and quiet, with single-overhead-camshaft design. The basic Montero Sport has rear-wheel drive with the 3.0, which performs capably, with 165 horsepower, but the 3.5 with its 24 valves boosts the dual-range, 4-wheel-drive Sport to 197 horsepower. Both engines run through Mitsubishi’s smooth-shifting 4-speed automatic.
That all collaborates to allow the Montero Sport to haul the same 5,000-pound towing capacity as the big Montero, and with a decidedly lower, more stable-feeling stance than the larger sibling.
The Montero Sport began life based on the long-standing and durable Mighty Max pickup, which has since been discontinued, but lives on as the underpinnings of the Montero Sport. So it is truck-based, not a car-based SUV wannabe, but fully qualified for more rugged use.
Inside, the Montero Sport has comfortable and supportive bucket seats up front, with a rear seat that folds down 1/3 and 2/3 to maximize options for people and stuff hauling. Naturally, folding either or both sides of the rear seat down expands the already generous capacity behind the seats, from 43.4 cubic feet if you fold 1/3 down and 79.3 cubic feet if you fold the whole rear seat down.
Driving controls are very well laid out. The new Montero Sport has a silvery-grey plastic trim on the dashboard and on the controls on the door panels. It looks good, rather than chintzy. The steering wheel tilts and adjusts, and the instrument package is simple but efficient.
Up high on the center dash panel are simply rotating knobs for heat and air-conditioning, and below that are the controls for the formidible audio system.
On the console itself, there is a small stowage compartment, with two cupholders of differing sizes built in. Ahead of the cupholders are two shift levers, with the main, larger one controlling the 4-speed automatic, while the smaller one locks you into 4-wheel drive, either high or low.
The dual-range transfer case is not new, but it still is useful, compared to many not-switchable competitors, if you want to haul something or seriously go off-road.
One of the more attractive features of the Montero Sport is that it doesn’t really overlap with the big Montero. The price structure ($23,000-$33,000) goes right up to the big Montero’s base, but doesn’t invade the bigger version’s range of $32,000-$36,000.
In size, the Montero Sport is 181 inches long (almost 8 inches shorter than Montero), 70 inches wide (4 inches narrower) and 67.7 inches tall (more than 6 inches lower). The minimum ground clearance is 7.7 inches in base form, and 8.7 inches with all-wheel drive and the larger wheels and tires. The big Montero has 9.3 inches of ground clearance.
That makes the Montero Sport an interesting alternative. Buyers who want the heavy-duty, no-compromise performance can go for the big Montero, but the masses, who may want off-road capabilities only once in a while, and a lower, sleeker, better handling on-road people and grocery-hauler, can save some money and go for the Montero Sport.
[[[[[[CUTLINES:
1. The Montero Sport has a distinctly different look from most other SUVs, and particularly the Montero itself.
2. Lower, sleeker and closer to the ground, the Montero Sport is a good people-hauler with off-road capabilities.
3. The interior is user-friendly from the standpoint of all controls, including the dual-range shifter and seat comfort.
4. Adequate cargo capabilities inside the rear hatch, and can be expanded to 79.3 cubic feet by folding down the rear seats. ]]]]]]
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