Volkswagen boosts Eurovan power, features, and slashes price
[[[CUTLINES:
1/ Volkswagen is relaunching the Eurovan, with significant increases in power, up to 201 horsepower, and a decrease in price, to the mid-$20,000 range.
2/ The high-opening rear hatch allows a middle shelf to separate the enormous 206 cubic feet of interior room in the Eurovan.
3/ The “Weekender” version has a pop-up roof that turns the Eurovan into a minicamper that can sleep four adults, with a refrigerator and table.
4/ The basic GLS Eurovan has forward facing buckets in the second row, and a three-seat bench in the rear.
5/ On the upgraded MV, the second-row buckets face the rear, and a fold-out table is secured on the driver’s side wall.
6/ The new extended snout of the Eurovan is still much shorter than a Ford Windstar, parked adjacent, increasing forward visibility.
“Our Eurovan was underpowered and overpriced,” said Frank Maguire, Volkswagen’s vice president in charge of North American marketing and sales.
His refreshing candor might have been unique among automotive executives worldwide. Where most of them either gush promotional bilge about their vehicles, regardless of whether they are good or bad, or else they obscure shortcomings with a barrage of corporate doubletalk. Maguire, on the other hand, flat pointed out that Volkswagen had a couple of pretty good reasons for relaunching the Eurovan — too slow, and too expensive.
Remember back when Chrysler invented the minivan trend, back in the early ’80s? Maguire remembers the trend, and he had a little fun with the popular misconception, as well. He was addressing a group of journalists, some of them cynics, at the Lake Placid Resort, which is located in the scenic little Upstate New York town best known for the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” victory by the U.S. Olympic hockey team.
“Volkswagen has a long history in vans,” Maguire said. “In fact, we have 50 years in the van market. But of course we didn’t invent the minivan; that was invented by Chrysler in the early 1980s.”
He was only being partially facetious.
“What we invented was the passenger van,” Maguire added. “There’s nothing ‘mini’ about it. We brought out the Microbus in 1950, and I think we sold two, that year. What we did was to put a rectangle on the Beetle platform. But people didn’t understand, because vans were for delivering, not for hauling people.”
The Microbus became an icon of the 1960s, and is still popular in California, where surfers find its open-rear size perfect for hauling their equipment. VW is planning to bring an all-new version of the Minivan back, probably within the next year. For now, the company wanted to reintroduce its Eurovan, the vehicle that replaced the Microbus as a bigger, roomier van. The Eurovan has not been an item of high priority by U.S. buyers, since it came to our shores in 1992. In fact, it petered out and wasn’t even brought to the U.S. from 1994-97, then it was quietly reintroduced in 1998.
“It was a stealth launch,” joked VW public relations director Tony Fouladpour.
Maguire remained flippant as he discussed the relaunch of the new Eurovan. The key, as he indicated, was what to do about it being too slow and too expensive.
Easy. Volkswagen, which had streamlined production of its Passat, Jetta, Golf and New Beetle in the last couple of years, did a great job of reducing production costs and tighting up production of the Eurovans in Hanover, Germany. The reduced cost in production, even with improved structural rigidity and improved engine, transmission and interior amenities, has been passed on to consumers. It was evident that a good Caravan, Voyager, Honda Odyssey, Ford Windstar, Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest or Mercury Villager could be obtained for somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000.
But a Eurovan, in all its squareness, listed at $31,000 for the GLS, and $32,800 for the upgraded MV. As the 2001 models roll into showrooms, those prices have dropped to $26,200 for the GLS and $27,700 for the MV. Who ever heard of a company dropping its price by 15-17 percent without compromising ingredients?
However, no matter how good the revisions are, and even how much the price drops, nobody is going to buy a “slow” minivan, which is the other project the Volkswagen engineers took on. They found a unique way to conquer it.
Volkswagen has built virtually bullet-proof motors for a lot of years, going back to that tough little flat-opposed job in the original Beetle. It moved on to a four-cylinder block that has been used for all sorts of different engines. And then it came out with a six. And not just a V6, but a unique V6 caled the VR6. When you look at a V6 from the end, if it were a cutaway you would see that most of them have the two banks of cylinders in the form of a V, which might be at a 60-degree angle, or even 90-degree. VW engineers built the VR6 in an unusual, serpentine fashion, so that the two banks were very close together.
Picture an in-line six, then push the second, fourth and sixth cylinder to one side, just a bit. The narrow angle VR6 has its cylinders aligned almost in serpentine fashion, alternating left, right, left, right, left, right. In this way, they put one cylinder head on top of both close-angle banks of cylinders, and the vehicle went well.
Except, it didn’t go well very quickly. Even though the VR6 is fast in Passat form, it only delivers 140 horsepower to the Eurovan. And the low-end was pretty feeble, with only 177 foot-pounds of torque setting the Eurovan in motion.
Ah, but that was the old Eurovan. The new one, just now being relaunched, has a revised VR6 engine — same displacement, different plumbing, starting with dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, plus variable valve timing. My reason for liking overhead cams is it allows a manufacturer to extract maximum power and efficiency without increasing displacement. By doing that, VW increased the horsepower from 140 to 201, and the torque from 177 to 181. The torque peak is at a mere 2,500 revs, which means a world of difference in performance, and it stays at that peak until 5,500 RPMs. Horsepower peaks at 6,200 revs.
With a relatively heavy vehicle — the Eurovan weighs 4,344 pounds — the VR6 doesn’t make you imagine yourself zooming down a dragstrip in the front-wheel-drive Eurovan. But it does take off quickly, with a lot of starch as soon as you touch the gas.
Driving the new Eurovan makes you quickly forget the former Eurovan, which is a good thing, particularly because it was soÂ…forgettable.
On top of the power increase, the new Eurovan engine is hooked up to an advanced stability and traction-control system, called ESP, for Electronic Stability Program. This is a standard feature, over and above the ASR (anti-slip regulation) system that also is standard for pure traction aid. Combined, these two high-tech aids mean you can start up and go strong in the most slippery of conditions, and you also can be sure of directional stability because a yaw-rate sensor feeds any skid tendencies into the system, and it instantaneously measures lateral acceleration and speed and can brake any of the four wheels slightly to straighten out and prevent the Eurovan from a skid.
All of that is combined with larger, 16-inch wheels, lower-profile tires, full front and rear independent suspension, increased torsional rigidity, and a suspension that allows all that power and control to grip the road in the tightest, twistiest of turns.
Frankly, it has to be driven, hard, to be appreciated, which is why Volkswagen summoned a couple waves of journalists to the Lake Placid Lodge. We got to whip around some tight roadways in the Adirondack mountains, and prove to ourselves what a difference power and handling can make, even in a tall van.
The Eurovan is tall, several inches taller than a Caravan, Windstar, GM version, or any other mainstream minivan. Yet its coefficient of drag is only 0.36, which is pretty good for a sedan, and exceptional for any minivan, most of which serve better as airdams. The Eurovan kept its stability, even when passed by an eager semi driver on the freeway. And it was so good on a twisty, dusty side road that I was able to hurl it around the turns and stay right on the tail of a couple of VW types who were scurrying from one stopover to another in a Jetta 1.8-Turbo.
While driving is enjoyable, the interior features of the Eurovan deserve inspection, too. The basic GLS has two front buckets, and two second-row buckets, with a third-row bench seat, meaning it seats seven. The second-row buckets pop out easily, increasing interior room, and the rear bench folds down to enhance stowage room. The MV — which stands for multi-van — is an upgrade that has, instead of forward-facing second-row buckets, two fixed, rear-facing buckets.That means two occupants can face the three rear-bench occupants, and a tight-fitting, fold-out table is hinged into the driver’s side wall, and it pops up to make a perfect little lunch or card-table between those rear-facing and rear bench seats.
Because it is tall, the Eurovan, which is slightly longer than a normal-length Caravan (or Windstar, or GM van), but shorter than a Grand Caravan, has 206 cubic feet of interior space, which is 11.4 percent more than the extended-length Chrysler minivans, and 18.8 percent more than the normal-length vans. You also can fold down the seats in the MV to turn the rear part into a full double bed.
There is one more, and it is something of a coup by VW. For a tad over $3,000, you get what’s called the “Weekender,” which starts out with a Eurovan on a stretched, 130.7-inch wheelbase, and includes a raise-able roof with fabric sides housing mosquito-netted windows on either side. That allows an adult to stand easily in the middle, and a platform-like bed also can be made up in the front part of the raised roof, on which you can sleep two more adults. The Weekender option also includes a small refrigerator located under the rear-facing bucket seat.
That means you can have your van and sleep four adults in a spacious, split-level setting, with a table and refrigerator, and still be right around $30,000.
Because VW is getting a late start with the introduction, it doesn’t expect to sell a lot of the new Eurovans this model year, and estimates are as low as 5,000. But it expects to double that amount next year, and has the capacity to redouble those out of its Hanover plant.
Beyond that, the revised Eurovan will be the basis for Volkswagen’s future plans, which include the new and more compact Microbus, and an SUV, which is being developed jointly by Volkswagen and — get this — Porsche.
The revision to the Eurovan, with its longer snout to house the twin-cam, multivalve VR6, and different headlights and standard foglights, is pretty subtle, and the rear remains boxy and, therefore, useful. But in one slick move, along with the increased power and lowered price, Volkswagen has turned the Eurovan into a pretty overwhelming entry in the minivan segment. And even Volkswagen must prefer a term like “overwhelming” to those previous terms like “underpowered” and “overpriced.”
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. ]]]]]]
Lexus adds strikingly unusual SC430 coupe/convertible to fleet
Nobody questions Toyota’s ability to make exceptional vehicles, with quality, workmanship and efficiency of performance that is unexcelled. Similarly, nobody was surprised when Toyota raised its own bar of production when it started its upscale Lexus line, with costlier vehicles that were even better and captured a large share of the market for consumers willing to spend a little more to get something special.
The LS430 is the latest version of the Lexus flagship, and its similarity to the best Mercedes luxury sedans is unmistakable, including the $50,000-plus sticker prices, and the smooth-running V8 power that drives the rear wheels. That’s fine for smooth cruising, and luxury, but it is a bit less than fine if you happen to be caught in an Up North snowstorm, as I was, during my week with the big sedan.
Last week, I got an opportunity to drive the new Lexus SC430, which is a sports-coupe version of the LS430. It is an unusual-looking sporty car, and it is an attention-grabber.
Advertising types get a bit nervous when the road-test subject is a car that is scarce, or not sold in the immediate area, even though I counter with evidence that people enjoy reading about fantasy vehicles as much as about the inexpensive subcompact they may be buying on a real-world budget.
I bring up that item, because the SC430 I drove undoubtedly was the first of its kind to enter the city limits of Duluth, and yet it attracted tremendous attention every time I stopped at a red light or to park. Those who didn’t know what the heck it was wanted to, but I was most surprised at how many people knew exactly what it was, having read about it in magazines or in advertisements from auto show exposure of the SC430.
One astute observer was a high school girl who stopped me to solicit a contribution for starving kids in Peru. After I had made a small donation, she admitted that she mainly just wanted to get an up-close and personal look at the SC430, because she already had collected several photos of it, her dream car, and was dazzled to get a chance to actually see one.
The styling of the SC430 is a departure for Lexus. It is a blunt little car, with bold but rounded edges, fore and aft, and a sleekly rounded aluminum roof that sweeps stylishly rearward. There is a distinct similarity to the Audi TT coupe when you examine the SC430, and it apparently is intended. That means it is ultramodern in design and performance, but there is definitely a retro air about it.
Under the hood is the smooth and powerful 4.3-liter V8, with variable valve timing, dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, and a quiet — almost silent — rush of power when you hit the gas. The high-tech engine puts out 300 horsepower at 5,600 RPMs and 325 foot-pounds of torque at 3,400. That’s a good disparity, because the torque launches you, and the high-revving capability means you are well on toward the top of the horsepower curve before you run out of low-end torque.
All that power runs through a 5-speed automatic that shifts more smoothly than sporty. Coupled with the quiet excellence of that 32-valve V8 engine, you can be moving much more swiftly, much sooner than you realize. Frankly, I’d prefer a little more roar out of that engine, as you head on up to the conservative 6,350-RPM redline. I enjoy fast cars as much or more than most people, but I like to have the audible sensation to help indicate when you’re getting on up there in revs and speed.
But this is not an all-out sports car, even if it performs like one. It’s more of a luxury-with-sport vehicle, aimed at cars like the Mercedes CLK430.
The SC430, however, will go 0-60 in a mere 5.9 seconds, which is in the neighborhood of all-out performance cars like Porsche or Corvette, and well beyond the capabilities of luxury coupes. All of that comes at a cost, and the SC430’s sticker price starts at $58,000 and zooms over the $60,000 mark quickly, if you add the navigation system and the sophisticated traction-control devices.
Handling is excellent, although I found the steering a bit too light from power boosting. Suspension is double-wishbone both front and rear, and huge, 18-inch aluminum wheels are shod with low-profile high-performance tires designed to run up to 100 miles per hour even if they go flat.
The flashiest thing about the SC430 is that you can push a button on the center dash panel and the sleekly rounded aluminum roof rises up and deposits itself under the trunklid. That transforms a very slippery coupe into a stunning open-top roadster. The trunklid opens from the front, clamshell-like, and devours the folding roof as smooth as you’d like. First, though, you have to pull back a screen in the trunk and fasten it just so into two little slots, which complete the electrical connection to allow the dash switch to work.
It refused to lower the roof on my first half-dozen tries, which made me think it was smarter than I was, for trying to turn a hardtop into a roadster in 40-degree weather. Turns out, I had too much stuff in the trunk, and the screen, which is like a horizontal window shade, wouldn’t fit flush enough to signal the top that it could retreat. Once I cleared out the trunk, it worked smoothly.
Of course, that also wipes out the trunk-space, which is impressive with the top up. It is larger, let’s say, than the legroom for the rear seats. Yes, the SC430 is technically a four-place car, but the rear seat legroom makes it uninhabitable for human beings.
Inside, the SC430 has generous supplies of bird’s-eye maple and leather, and both the wood and the leather are of a class of their own in richness. When you sit in the plush leather seat, and first grip the steering wheel, you have to be impressed by the wheel itself, which is highly polished wood and leather.
The instruments are well laid out, and the center dash panel can be completely covered with wood trapdoors, which come out at the push of a button to cover the audio controls.
That audio system is top-shelf, too. It has nine speakers, and a 6-disc CD player built in, and the whole system is made by Mark Levinson, a name that won’t mean anything to you unless you are deeply into the best home audio systems.
While you can cruise or speed to your appointed rounds in luxurious surroundings, listening to your tunes at higher decibel levels than you thought your eardrums could tolerate, you will make an impression that leaves passers-by gaping and pointing.
The front end is sharply raked, with fantastic headlight bulbs built in under sloping lenses, and very impressive foglights housed in lower front ducts that also send cooling air to the front disc brakes. The sculptured lower sides and rising angle to the rear wheelwell are harmonious but unusual, sloping quickly down at the rear.
The taillights are slits that also are housed nicely in the bodywork, and there’s an arching spoiler over the rear lip of the trunklid. A large, almost massive, rear bumper has a lower lip, through which two large, businesslike tailpipes protrude.
At first, I found the SC430 to look unusual, and while I liked it, I wasn’t dazzled in the way the Audi TT is dazzling. But the SC430 is easier to like as you drive it, and you become more and more impressed as you witness the impact it seems to have on everybody who gets within sight of it.
The big Lexus LS430, on the other hand, is a large and impressive sedan, that looks and acts a lot like a Mercedes and has 290 horsepower from the same engine. While it is understated to the point of looking classy but unspectacular, the LS430 is equally loaded with fine touches inside.
The problem with both cars is that, despite the most sophisticated traction-control devices, the rear-wheel drive can reduce contenders for the honor of the world’s finest cars to futility while some inexpensive front-wheel-drivers zoom by in icy conditions on steep hills.
The SC430 in particular would feel even more impressive with an all-wheel-drive system, but that’s not likely. Besides, Lexus has taken clear aim at Mercedes, so copying something so Audi quattro-ish is out of the question.
Of course, when it’s icy and snowy, you can’t be dropping that aluminum roof down out of the way, either. So you leave it in the garage when winter is howling, and enjoy the heck out of it in good weather. Fantasy cars are intended for such missions.
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