Disclosure that fuel economy can improve is blatantly obvious
[[[[cutlines:
1/ A National Academy of Sciences committee has verified the obvious — fuel economy could be improved from readings such as 12.7 miles per gallon.
2/ The extremes of lifestyles range from cars such as the Mercedes “Smart” car (left) popular in congested European cities, to the SUVs and trucks such as the Ford F150 (right) that dominate U.S. driveways, roadwaysÂ…and fuel stations. ]]]]]
Have you heard the news? A committee organized by the National Academy of Sciences brought out the revelation that the technology actually exists to allow U.S. automotive manufacturers to increase the fuel economy on the vehicles they build.
Talk about an amazing grasp of the obvious!
The good thing about this disclosure, which was played as big news in the media, is that the Bush administration has said it would use this report to possibly alter the dormant standards on fuel economy, which haven’t been altered for a decade or two.
Over those two decades, U.S. automakers have devoted considerable energy to two things: 1. Building bigger, bigger, less-economical and far-more-expensive vehicles for the U.S. marketplace; and 2. Lobbying the government to not raise the fuel-economy standards because it would cause them to stop building the cars “America wants,” which just happen to coincide with the trucks those companies have been building and which have produced obscene profits for the companies.
We, as consumers, have been left in the dusty assumption that we don’t comprehend how much we’ve been had by spending enormous amounts of money to buy large vehicles with large engines, which get 10-15 miles per gallon.
Meanwhile, over in Europe, or Japan, or in every other nation where people drive cars, those people are driving small, compact vehicles with high-tech and efficient engines that produce tremendous fuel-economy figures.
I recently drove a couple of Ford F150 pickups with four-door cabs and flashy trim and huge V8 engines. My fuel economy figures showed 14.4 miles per gallon in city-highway driving. And the Fords are not the worst. I’ve driven Chevy Suburban/Tahoe models that got 11 miles per gallon. And I more recently drove a Durango with a big, throaty V8 that got 12.7 miles per gallon.
In Europe, Volkswagen engineers have refined their turbo-diesels to get over 100 miles per gallon, with a giant assist from the more-refined, less-foul fuel they get — at great expense. What continues to go unreported, or uncriticized, is that the fuel we get, whether gasoline or diesel, is so unrefined that it is filled with nitrous oxides and pollutants. Not only is it of poor quality, but the most high-tech engines from foreign auto-builders can’t even be brought into the U.S., and wouldn’t work efficiently on our fuel if they could.
So, if you’ve ever wondered why cars sold both in Europe and the U.S. can run stronger, faster and with better fuel economy with smaller engines in Europe than they can in the U.S., the focus of the consumers, the responsibility of the fuel refiners and the technical wizardry of the auto manufacturers have conspired to give them safe, high-tech vehicles with good power and great fuel economy.
When I visited France a couple of months ago, I was astonished to see all the tiny commuter cars zipping around. They handled congestion better, because more of ’em can fit in a prescribed space, and they make a lot more sense when you try to find a parking place in a city that has very few of them. But mostly they make sense because they are major expenses for buyers, who demand long-lasting durability and excellent gas mileage, because gas costs close to $5 a gallon.
Mercedes and Audi make tiny cars, as do Peugeot, Renault, Volkswagen and Fiat. Mercedes makes one intriguing vehicle called the “Smart” car, which is a very cute, very efficient two-occupant vehicle. You can find ’em everywhere, even parked on sidewalks. Might be the ideal commuter car, and it must get 50 miles per gallon..
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., where SUVs and large trucks fill the roadways, it takes a national organization to put together a committee to say that there might be a better way than to build 40-year-old engines, with ancient technology, and lousy mileage.
For decades, the U.S. government standards have declared that a company’s cars must meet a corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) average of 27.5 miles per gallon, while trucks must only average 20.7 MPG. In the decade that law was enacted, trucks generally meant work vehicles, pickups and delivery trucks. In the 30 years since, trucks have come to replace sedans and station wagons as mainstream commuter vehicles — possibly bought to tow trailers, but ultimately used as single-occupant commuters.
But by clever lobbying, the U.S. automakers have persuaded the government to back off on proposed increases in standards for trucks.
Now, I’m not suggesting that everybody who likes trucks, minivans and SUVs should dump them for tiny cars. We’ve gone this far, and there is no easy and efficient way to get back to reasonable size.
A whole new bracket of consumers insists it wants and needs large trucks for the safety of size, for the up-high visibility, and for the four-wheel-drive capability in wintertime. As I’ve written repeatedly, Up North drivers have more legitimate reason for such trucks than anyone, because of cabins, outdoorsy things like fishing, hunting, snowmobiling and hauling. But the country is filling up with unneeded trucks, used to replace sedans.
We are only now learning that such trucks are less agile, less maneuverable, and prone to rollovers if you try to handle them as you ordinarily would handle a car. True, you are safer in a big truck if you hit a small car, but it’s also true that you are far less able to miss hitting something if handling and steering control is required. Conversely, the small car driver might be more at risk of being injured if hit by a large truck, but the small-car driver also has a far better chance to swerve, steer, brake or otherwise duck the accident.
There is no reason we should assume accidents are inevitable. Avoiding them is still the best course of safety.
The logical course of action is to work hard on making smaller cars safer — something Europe has done very well. Volkswagen’s Beetle and Golf rank among the safest vehicles of their size ever built. Meanwhile, the large, overweight and ill-handling trucks — the biggest fuel-economy culprits — could be made leaner, tighter, slightly smaller, and be fitted with higher-tech engines that would deliver adequate power and also greatly increase fuel economy while limiting emissions.
In our runaway surge to buying and owning large trucks, we have allowed the car-makers to insult our intelligence by tantalizing us with more power and looking the other way when it comes to gas mileage.
Because we actually buy more trucks than cars nowadays, it is staggering to learn that in the face of advertising and marketing about more power and modern engineering, in the year 2000, vehicles built by U.S. companies got their poorest fuel economy since 1980.
If you don’t think our government was intimidated into inaction on this issue while greenhouse gases, global warming and costly fuel refills took over our lives, consider that the government is nearing the end of a 6-year prohibition that has prevented the Department of Transportation from even studying any changes to the fuel economy standards for U.S. cars.
Ford moved ahead of General Motors and Chrysler a few years ago when it introduced overhead-camshaft engines on its pickup trucks and SUVs. Chrysler responded by offering some OHC engines on its Jeeps and Durango and Dakota pickups, and now on the new Ram. General Motors was the most stubborn, but GM also is coming out with new, in-line 6 engines with dual-overhead cams, multiple valves and all the latest high-tech touches.
It’s taken years, but the U.S. is finally getting with it. In this computer era, when your kid won’t consider a computer that might be six months old, it’s hard to believe any major company could assume we would think 40 or 50 year old engines were high-tech.
Or that getting 10-14 miles per gallon made any sense, whether fuel costs $1.50 or $3 per gallon.
The Europeans realized that, out of necessity, years ago. And they didn’t need some well-funded, national association committee to tell them the obvious news. Saying our auto-makers could find ways to improve fuel economy is a lot like declaring it’s better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.
When it gets too hot, convertible drivers have to put their tops up
[[[cutlines:
1/ The BMW 325 convertible retains its classy good looks even with the snazzy fabric top up.
2/ With the top down, the BMW 325 convertible is an eye-catcher, as long as it’s not too cold — or too hot! ]]]]
One of the great bits about the old Johnny Carson Tonight Show was when Carson would get going in his monologue and say something about it being hot, prompting the audience to chorus: “HowÂ…hotÂ…wasÂ…it?”
Carson would then give any of dozens of catchy punchlines.
This past week in Minnesota, and all across the Upper Midwest, has been scorching hot, setting records day after day, and also bringing up such trivia as the “hottest low temperature of the day” records, which Duluth set several times.
I love the weather and its changeable characteristics. I love it when it’s hot, when it’s cold, when it’s chilly, when it’s raining, when it’s foggy and grey, when it’s unseasonably cold, hot or whatever. That’s why Minnesota, and particularly Northern Minnesota, and most specifically the North Shore region, is my ideal country.
This past week, however, my limitations were reached. I thought it would be a perfect time to be driving a convertible — any convertible — to take advantage of the wind-in-your-hair freedom from the oppressive heat. When my random sampling of raod-test vehicles showed up, and the car of the week was a BMW 325 convertible, it seemed too much good fortune to be true.
Now, however, I must confess to a new and previously unanticipated new answer to Johnny Carson’s old crowd-baiting question. If Carson returned and his crowd asked “How hot was it?” — I would have to answer that it was “So hot I had to put the top UP on my BMW convertible!”
Yes, I learned the hard way, or at least the hot way, why people in Florida, or Arizona, or California, buy convertibles but mostly drive them with the tops up instead of with the tops down, as the auto-making gods intended. I used to think it was strange that folks in Florida probably didn’t put their tops down as much as Minnesotans, who took their punishment from the cold winters to appreciate it when the temperature got warm, and anything above 55 degrees was a good reason to put the top down on your convertible.
Late last fall, dangerously close to winter in Northern Minnesota, I got a chance to test a BMW 323 convertible, and I reflected on how it looked so good that I couldn’t resist driving it with the top down whenever I got the opportunity. Often that meant turning the heater on with the airflow aimed at my feet, and even wearing a fleece jacket and cap so that I could make the car live up to its flashy potential even while overcoming potential hypothermia.
Why, I wondered, didn’t I have the luck to get a BMW convertible in the summertime? Now I have, and I’m crying out for moderation.
Sixty degrees, or even 50, is better for convertible driving than 95. Those people who calculate heat index from combining temperature with air movement and direct sunrays and humidity — as well as those skeptics who would rather not believe in such figures — should come up with a new category. Something like “heat index in a convertible.”
Modern convertibles are so neat that they have pretty well mastered the ways to keep cold air off your face and body, and the quest to make convertibles comparatively quiet while running with the top down has impressively been conquered. But when the sun is scorching us at 90-plus, and the humidity pushes the heat index over 100, having the top down to enjoy the sun is too much of a good thing.
We were in the Twin Cities last weekend, and the onboard thermometer climbed to 96, 97, 98, and 99, and I wondered if it wasn’t possible that BMW had cut a corner by not having a three-digit thermometer in its readout. An hour later, there it was: 100, and even 101. At the time, I was wishing we could be in Duluth, knowing full well we could be driving along the North Shore and it would be 75, or even 65, right at that moment.
But we weren’t. We were being fried in our seats in the BMW, so I raised the top. True, I felt as if I had committed some sort of crime against nature by putting up the top and turning on the air-conditioning. Especially when I’d see a Miata or a Chevrolet Cavalier convertible with the top down. I’d envy them for an instant, and then I would look into their faces and see pure agony. For the chance to look “cool” in a figurative sense, they had abandoned any chance at being cool in a global-warming, where’s-the-ozone-layer-when-we-need-it sense.
As it turned out, we journeyed north to Duluth Sunday night, and it was surprisingly warm, even then. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday came and went, and by then, I had capitulated. When it hits 90 or more in Duluth, and along the North Shore, it is time to raise my convertible roof and contemplate solar-powered cars.
Cars are tested severely when it’s that hot. We in the North Country are wise enough to take care of our cars for the winter, when cold temperatures are an obvious threat. But we sometimes are guilty of overlooking maintenance in the summer, when hot weather can be just as bad, if not worse, for your car’s parts.
If you wind up on a freeway where construction forces lane reductions that make the term “freeway” wistful thinking, at best, and the term “gridlock” is much closer to reality, your car can suffer from overheating, which can leave you stranded by the side of the road, and also can do serious, almost terminal damage to your car’s engine.
If you see the temperature gauge climbing seriously high, you can do a couple of things to help it get you home. For one, the idea that if you let the engine idle or run at low RPMs it will stay cool is completely backward. Run the revs up a little, which will cause the fan to spin faster and the cooling system to circulate better, which can reduce the internal temperature. Turning off the air-conditioning is another good way to save your engine’s energy.
By far the most effective way to bring down your engine’s radiator heat is not pleasant; it requires turning on your heater, full-blast. That way, the car’s heat is dissipated by force-feeding it into the passenger compartment. Good for the engine, not so good for barbecued occupants.
The problem with a car overheating carries with it the problem of the driver overheating. Drivers become irritable, hostile and aggressively angry when they get hot, and when you couple that with freeway slowdowns and other construction ventures, it can escalate dramatically.
In the far north, that usually isn’t a problem, because people have gotten along just fine without house air-conditioning or car air-conditioning for decades, because you could always count on it to cool down, especially by the big lake, at night, no matter how hot the daytime hours were. But that may no longer be valid.
Maybe it’s global warming, but our temperature and weather has been severe rather than moderate for two or three years now. Think about it: We don’t have a gentle rain shower, we have either dry conditions or a monsoon. We don’t have pleasant fall afternoons in the 50s, it seems to go right from summer to winter. We don’t have many lazy snow flurries, where we get just enough to put a white coating on everything; it’s either no snow until Christmas, or record-setting blizzards whenever it snows.
Same with the heat. Where are those perfect, Duluth-legend 75-degree days? Instead, we get strangely chilly 60 degrees with fog, or else we get what we got in the past week — 90-plus temperature, with serious impairment threatened by the temperature index.
With all that in mind, the BMW 325 convertible is still an awesome car to drive, never mind the $40,000 price sticker. BMW has converted its base engines for the 3-series to six cylinders, in-line, and amazingly smooth and strong. Dual overhead camshafts with variable valve-timing make the 2.5-liter six a potentially hot runner, with 0-60 times that make you forget you’re in a classy boulevard-running convertible. The test vehicle didn’t have the manual shifter, which elicits those hot times. Instead, it had BMW’s slick 5-speed automatic, with a separate gate for clutchless manual upshifts and downshifts.
Handling suspension and steering are typically taut, enhancing driver control over all aspects of driving. That is something BMW will never compromise, and keeps that Bavarian company as among the world’s standards for performance sedans, coupes, sports cars, and now SUVs.
The fierce-looking, enclosed quad headlights, and well-aimed foglights set off the sleek front, and the whole thing fits a styling package that has elevated the 3-series coupes and sedans to becoming the standard of most auto-fanciers’ idea of ideal.
Adding the convertible top is interesting. Most convertibles look good only with the top down, and they look stodgy with the top up. Which always made me snicker when folks used to put vinyl fake-convertible tops on their sedans, just to pretend they had a convertible, and overlooking the fact that a sleek sedan looks better than a convertible with its top up.
The BMW 325, however, takes a different tack. With the top down, it’s sensational. With the top up, it looks very good, almost as good as the 325 coupe itself.
The true beauty of the 325 convertible is, however, like all BMWs, in the engineering attention to detail. Putting the top up and down is an exercise in engineering that you can use to impress people. Push one button on the console and hold it down, and all four windows drop down, then the top lifts off the front and starts back, then the whole top kicks forward, letting a motorized hatch open toward the rear, then the top resumes its journey, back and down until it is completely nestled inside the cubicle, which the hatch then closes with a snap-shut finish.
All of that takes longer to describe than it does to make it happen. Putting it back up means pushing a different button on the console, hold it down and the whole process reverses, with the hatch rising to the back, then the top coming up and forward, moving far enough to let the hatch come back forward and lock in place, then the top spreads fore and aft and locks in place. Keeping your finger on the button after the top is up and secured will cause all four windows to rise also.
Similarly, on the console where the four power window buttons are located, a fifth button will allow you to raise or lower all four windows at once.
Very impressive, and I showed off the mechanical marvel of the power roof going down dozens of times to friends and bystanders.
But during the last week, I almost always followed the demonstration of putting the top down by another demonstration of putting the top up, the windows up, and turning the air-conditioning on. Full. Johnny Carson would understand.
Inexpensive coupe brings Mercedes within reasonable reach
Every auto manufacturer has been working for years to strive for the high standards of luxury, performance and workmanship for which Mercedes has been known. But a funny thing happened while common cars have been reaching for the Mercedes level — Mercedes has come back to pick up the masses.
I was among a gathering of 75 automotive journalists in the U.S. who were summoned to Raleigh, N.C. to be introduced to the entire Mercedes line for 2002. We stayed right on campus at Duke University, and then paired up to drive off through the countryside, into Virginia, where we ended up at the recently renovated Virginia International Raceway, a 3.25-mile road-racing circuit.
Before the day was done, all 75 of us had been exposed to 85 Mercedes vehicles. In brief overview, here they are:
S-Class–S430, S500, S600 and S55 AMG sedans, ranging from $72,815-$115,865; the SL coupes and roadsters, both the SL500 and SL600, priced from $84,465-$129,615; The CL500, CL55 AMG and CL600 cupes, ranging from $91,415-$119,615.
E-Class–E320, E430 and E55 AMG sedans and wagons, including 4Matic all-wheel-drive versions, ranging from $49,115-$72,015;
C-Class–C240, C320 and C32 AMG sedans, ranging from $25,615-$50,615; and the CLK coupes and roadsters, ranging from $43,215-$79,665;
M-Class (SUVs)–ML320, ML500 and ML55 AMG, ranging from $36,965-$66,565.
These models all were available, but Mercedes has made some bold steps for 2002. Those steps include offering the huge, boxy, off-road specialist, the G500, at $73,165. It is reminiscent of the biggest Range Rover or Toyota Land Cruiser, and it pretty awesome as the ultimate station wagon. Mercedes also is embellishing the C-Class entry level array with a Sport Wagon, a station wagon that has sweet, smooth lines and is all-Mercedes under the skin. There also are numerous sporty-upgrade versions of virtually every model, redone by AMG to be more powerful and better handling than the already powerful and good-handling Mercedes models.
But the biggest hit in the whole Mercedes line, to me, is the new C-Class Coupe. This car doesn’t have the spectacular performance or the breathtaking auras of the costlier coupes — but for $80,000 or more, you SHOULD get spectacular and breathtaking stuff. The Mercedes C-Coupe is a sleek, bobtailed 2-plus-2 vehicle with exceptional performance and fuel economy, and while there never is any doubt that it is purebred Mercedes, the sticker price is only $24,950.
That’s right. For $24,950, you can be driving a Mercedes, and a high-tech, racy coupe at that. True, you can add options to boost the price up over $30,000, but it’s a great car at base price.
If you lined up all the vehicles in the Mercedes line, and offered me one, I would choose the SL600, which might be the outright finest-looking vehicle ever built outside of the Italian Ferrari or Lamborghini factories, and maybe including them. The SL600 has unbelievable lines and the performance of a 389-horsepower, 6-liter, V12 engine. But, come on, the SL600 costs $129,615. So jump to the other end of the Mercedes spectrum, and the C-Coupe is light, agile, quick, amazingly fun to drive, and it comes armed with a 2.3-liter 4-cylinder, fed by supercharger to produce 192 horsepower.
After a classroom overview of all the vehicles, we paired up to drive to Virginia. A fellow asked me to co-drive, and I accepted, because he looked comparatively sane, and at some of these events, you can run into a lunatic disguised as a journalist who decides the only way to impress his peers is to overdrive to the point of being a high-risk threat to life and limb — mine.
So we drove a couple of different vehicles up through the countryside, then arrived at the race track. Some actual race drivers, including Ernie Ervin, John Paul Jr., the son of Johnny Rutherford, the son of Wally Dallenbach, the brother of Eddie Cheever, and a number of other intelligent driver/teachers, would show us the proper lines through all the turns around the road course, which had been divided into two separate shorter road-race courses. There also was an off-road circuit that was muddier and more challenging than anything you’ll find in Northern Minnesota or Wisconsin.
There also was a small autocross course set up in what would be the pit area, a large, paved expanse. Cones were set out to define a narrow, twisty, tight-turning little circuit where a car could be driven one at a time.
All 75 of us were divided into four groups, with one group at each station, rotating after an hour or so.
My favorite car to drive on the race track was the C32 AMG, which is the C-Class 4-door sedan, which begins life at $30,000, but this one gets tweaked by the racy guys at AMG, with the supercharged V6 engine and trick suspension. The company was founded in 1967 by Hans-Werner Aufrecht (the “A”) and Erhard Melcher (the “M”), and they were located in Grossaspach, Germany (the “G”).
While the AMG folk worked their magic on specialty cars for years, Mercedes finally bought them out and their after-market work is now a standard optional upgrade package of wheels, tires, suspension, interior and engine refinements. As good as all the costlier cars were — and I was able to get some of them up to 125 miles per hour coming out of the last turn and sweeping down the hill past start-finish — the C32 AMG model seemed to be the best total package of power, handling and predictability.
The standard C-Class sedan has 168 horsepower from a 2.6-liter V6; the AMG C32 has 349 horsepower and 332 foot-pounds of torque from a supercharged 3.2-liter V6, and it goes 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, making it the quickest Mercedes sedan ever, while also boasting a top speed of 155. No wonder I liked it.
Running the variety of sedans, coupes and roadsters on the race track, with a high-buck Bell helmet strapped on our noggins, was a phenomenal experience, and my old road-racing tendencies seemed to take over and I was able to improve my cornering and power applications virtually every lap in every car.
The G-Class wagon, which is overbuilt for real-world duty, was remarkable in off-road laps. With the M-Class already up there among the best luxury-SUVs, the G-Class is over the top of the scale, as well as the hill.
By luck of the draw, my group’s final session was at the autocross. The blond-haired guy instructing us on what we would do read off our names as if it were roll-call in junior high. When he got to my name, he mentioned that he wanted to talk to me later. Turns out, his name is Steve Michael, and he used to work in the Twin Cities, and we knew each other vaguely when I was covering the Minnesota North Stars and auto racing in the Twin Cities.
Anyhow, the concept at the autocross is that we would all sit at the starting line, Michael would signal us when to start, and we would zoom, without so much as a practice lap, on one lap, zig-zagging here and there and around something like 15 or 20 kinks and turns, all between cones that were barely more than a car-width wide, and we would be timed from start until we reached the finishing cones. We would drive two identical C-Coupes, with the 2.3 engines but with automatic transmissions instead of the 6-speed manuals. We were told to leave the transmissions in third. Our times would be compiled, but if you hit so much as one cone, you’re disqualified.
I had driven a C-Coupe briefly previously with the 6-speed, but I was amazed at how it handled. I took off as hard as possible, flung the thing around the tight left turn, caught it and stayed on the power around to the right, back and forth, swerving between cones in a chicane-like area where you couldn’t be sure if you had missed the cones or not. After making the 90-degree last big turn, you skipped through a final zig-zag and then charged to the finish line.
A fellow said I had done well, and another said I was the quickest in my particular group, by an eyelash.
Then we drove back to Raleigh, and my driving partner and I chose the ace of the field — a dark blue SL600 V12, the $139,000 model. Hours later, we all were herded out to a fantastic dinner, and in the short program that followed, they pulled out a Bell racing helmet, gleaming white except for the blue permanent marker autographs of all the assembled race drivers who had served as instructors.
The Mercedes folks announced that the souvenir helmet would be awarded to the journalist who had the best overall time, from all four groups. To my amazement, they called my name. It was quite a thrill, but to a driving zealot, no more of a thrill than actually driving all the cars.
As I returned to the table, the fellow who had asked me to be his driving partner laughed, and told me that he had picked me to be his partner because my prematurely silver hair — it’s been prematurely silver for about 20 years now — made him think I would be a safe partner. If he had known I would win the on-track competition, he might have asked someone else.
[[[[[[CUTLINES:
1/ A pair of new C-Coupes were hustled around an autocross course by 75 U.S. automotive journalists at the Mercedes 2002 full-line introduction.
2/ A Bell racing helmet, adorned with signatures of all the race-driver instructors, was the prize for winning the autocross.
3/ The Mercedes C32 AMG offers 349 horsepower, more than doubling the power of the standard C-Class sedan.
4/ New for 2002 is a Mercedes C-Class station wagon.
5/ Another new entry from Mercedes is the G-Class SUV, which is an over-the-top luxury king of the (off) road.
6/ A candidate for best-looking car in the world is the 2002 Mercedes SL600 — a V12 coupe priced at $129,615. ]]]]]]]]]
New Dodge Ram butts into highest-echelon pickup truck battle
The pickup truck segment has always been competent, just like it always was dominated by Ford and Chevrolet. After several decades of that fight, Dodge startled the automotive world by thundering into the battle with the Dodge Ram. It wasn’t that Dodge had never made trucks before, but suddenly Dodge came out with a vehicle that was almost so outrageous that it couldn’t miss.
For years, it seemed that Ford and Chevy were trying to tame down their pickups to make them less truck-like and filled with more car amenities, while still allowing them to fulfill the rugged work duties of a truck. Dodge simply looked at the popularity of pickups and SUVs and decided to make the biggest, baddest truck of all. The Ram looked more like a semi tractor scaled down to large pickup size, and it made an immediate impact on the marketplace.
The latest evolution of the Ford F150 is the best ever, and the new Chevy Silverado burst on the scene a year or so ago and was the best pickup Chevy ever built. So now it is the 2002 model year, which happens to be the time DaimlerChrysler picked to introduce an entirely new Ram.
I was able to road-test a new Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 4×4 SLT Sport, which should at least be enough words, numbers, letters and designations to satisfy the decal and emblem makers.
Compared to the huge Ram that ended its run in 2001, the new truck is sleeker but still impressively macho and imposing to the eye. The flame red color is almost traditional for Dodge now, and the clear headlight lenses and grille seem to ride lower. The full four-door cabin is impressive. The front doors, naturally, swing full and easy, and the back doors open fully, almost to a full 90 degrees, making it a wide expanse to climb into either front or rear.
Let’s say, it would be easy, except that the Ram has a lot of ground clearance, in case you have to charge across a field, or haul something off-road. It has so much clearance that you would be better off pole-vaulting into the cabin. There is no running board, which doesn’t bother me, but it did take a trick and a bit of repetition to figure out the most efficient way of climbing aboard. I found that you could put your left foot high up on the floor, and as you leaped toward the driver’s seat, you would do a little half-pivot, landing at least part of your seat on the truck seat. Then you could sort of wiggle your way in the rest of the way.
The slate-grey cloth seats was firm and supportive, and the instrument panel and controls are all well at hand.
Noticeable right off is the large center console that opens to display a housing for a computer. You could lock in and plug in your laptop right there, with room to spare. Not a bad work station. That still leaves lots of room for two full-size front occupants. The rear seat is broad and will easily seat three adults, with surprisingly good legroom and enough space to avoid the usual straight-up, jump-seat style of rear pickup seating.
But here’s the best part. That huge computer-designed front console also will fold up, exposing a full-width center seat on what is called a 40-20-40 front bench, which has full power on the driver’s seat. When you fold it up, the base of the console gives you a nicely designed backrest for the center occupant, making the Dodge a full 6-passenger.
Behind the full, 4-door cabin there is a large pickup box, fully lined with tough plastic stuff to prevent chipping and scratching, no matter what you throw back there.
As impressive as all the standard and optional features were, the best was yet to come. New suspension on the new platform has made the new Dodge extra stable, and a lot of new-technology features have conspired to make it feel extremely tight in all steering and cornering maneuvers. The 20-inch alluminum wheels with P275/60R20 tires bolstered the security even more, and four wheel disc brakes with antilock were as impressive as the 4-wheel-drive was.
Naturally, you can get a selection of engines, and this one had what I would choose — the new 4.7-liter V8, with overhead camshafts. The engine runs strong, starting from low end and all through the revs, with peak horsepower of 240 at 4,800 RPMs, and maximum torque at 300 foot-pounds at 3,200 revs. That engine, which also has seen use in the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Dakota and Durango, is tied to a 4-speed automatic transmission, with a 1,450 pound payload and a 7,150 pound trailer towing package.
While revving high, that engine also will deliver 13 city miles per gallon and 17 on the highway. Altogether, the big red Dodge is proof that the feel and performance of the vehicle is greater than the sum of the parts.
Accelerating down a ramp, hauling a load of stuff, carrying three or four adult occupants, and steering through tight and twisting maneuvers, the Ram performs well, with comfort and security, but most of all with an impressive tightness. The truck is quiet and strong in every application.
When you buy a pickup truck, silence may not be a prime ingredient. You buy what you like best, but you have to be impressed when you seem neat little touches. But with the Dodge Ram, you get silence and the quietness of a tight, close-tolerance body.
The base price of the Ram pickup is $25,350, which is a lot, but yet reasonable for all you get in a large pickup nowadays. That includes all the standard stuff, including air conditioning, the split seats, and the all wheel drive, which is accessible through a floor-mounted stick. You can get 4-wheel high speed of low, and 2-wheel high and low.
The test truck had a lot of options. The sport group gives you larger wheels, foglights, a grille that is coated in the same color as the body, trailer towing package, keyless entry, security alarm, 4-speed automatic, a rear sliding window, and a stereo radio with CD player and cassette, a trailer towing group, with heavy battery, transmission cooler, hitch, wiring harness and wiring adaptor, power adjustable pedals and the box bedliner.
Naturally, that boosts the base price, and in this case it boosts it to $33,695.
That’s a lot of money, but that’s the going rate for a premium pickup with extended cab seating and all the comforts of home — or computer desk. But keep in mind that the new Ram already had broken into the “big two” to give large truck buyers a definite alternative. This time, it is clear that Dodge intends to move to the front of the class.
I found a couple of interesting things with the Ram pickup. On Duluth hills, after the big snowstorm, there were some icy avenues, which always are a challenge. When a 4-wheel-drive vehicle has high and low shift points, the low range is to lock the axles for steep climbs, but more for steep declines. So when I was about to descend one of Duluth’s steepest avenues, I set the shift-on-the-fly lever to 4wd low, then nosed over for the mile-long descent. The low range worked fantastically to keep the speed of the big truck in check, allowing you to easily cruise down the hill without riding the brake.
As for the full-size, full-opening rear doors, I was parked at night on a downtown street, and when I was going to leave, I walked around the rear of the truck, glancing behind at approaching traffic. I hit the remote to unlock all the doors, then I walked quickly along the driver’s side of the truck, all the while looking back at the approaching car, which was getting close. As I looked at the car coming, I knew I had time to hop in, so without looking at the truck, I grabbed the door handle, flung the door open and did my little hop, jump and get-in move. To my surprise, I was hopping into the BACK seat.
That tells you how big and roomy the rear seating area is, and how daffy your automotive correspondent can get.
[[[[cutlines:
1/ The Dodge Ram for 2002 is all new, from the chassis and suspension on up, including a new look and a new interior.
2/ A full liner in the large box leaves the pickup capability of the Ram 1500 in place, even with a full, 6-passenger cabin with full opening rear doors. ]]]]
Cadillac, Ford, Nissan models are 2002 Car of the Year finalists
The test-drives, the evaluations, calculations and compilations are complete, and the voting for the annual North American International Car (and Truck) of the Year award is finished. The awards are due to be announced in the first week of January at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
There is a chance that the winners will be a big surprise. That chance is enhanced by the fact that the three finalists in both the car and truck competition have been announced, in alphabetical order just for enhanced secrecy.
The three car of the year finalists are: Cadillac CTS, Ford Thunderbird, and Nissan Altima.
The three truck of the year finalists are: Chevrolet Avalanche, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, and Jeep Liberty.
These are the results of complex voting procedures by 50 selected automotive journalists and broadcasters from around the continent. It is my esteemed honor to be among those, which also makes it my “inside” ability to be somewhat surprised by the finalists.
But first, I must say that I found the contenders for both car and truck of the year to be the most hotly competitive in the seven or eight years I’ve been on the jury.
Last year, it was pretty easy. The Chrysler PT Cruiser was an easy winner among the cars, and the Acura MDX was the selected truck of the year. The Cruiser was a can’t-miss, although I was mildly surprised that the MDX won, even though it is an outstanding vehicle, because there were some pretty daunting challengers.
But this year, there is no overwhelming favorite in either category.
Consider the final 10 car candidates. The Cadillac CTS is an entirely new car, and the Thunderbird also is a new project with an old, familiar name. The Altima is an entirely new vehicle too, the latest version of Nissan’s bread-and-butter midsize car. However, other contenders include the Acura RSX, which is a new sports coupe that will replace the Integra and render the Honda Prelude obsolete. Mercedes has brought out a similarly all-new C-Coupe, which has fantastic technology and is a purebred Mercedes, obtainable for $25,000.
Another all-new car is the Jaguar X-Type, an under-$30,000 all-wheel-drive vehicle that is a perfect blend of Jaguar style and class and Ford production streamlining. Like the Altima, Toyota has brought out the latest generation of the Camry, which is the all new vehicle that has been the top-selling car in the U.S. for two or three years. Nissan also brought out an all-new Q45 for its upscale Infiniti group. Subaru has graced the Impreza line with a WRX hot version of a worldwide rally champion, and the WRX was another finalist.
My personal choice, however, for most points, is the new Audi A4, in a tight choice over the RSX, the C-Coupe, the X-Type, and the Altima, while I also gave vote points to the Thunderbird, CTS and Q45.
The A4 arguably has been the best overall mid-size sedan in the world for six years, with very few changes, offering both front-wheel-drive and quattro all-wheel-drive. For 2002, Audi has completely redone the A4, and its technology has gone right over the top of the scales. It has a new 3.0-liter V6, all aluminum, with 5-valves per cylinder and variable valve timing, or the spectacular 1.8-liter 4-cylinder turbo, which delivers V8-like power, V6-type versatility, and 4-cylinder-like economy. On top of that, you can get the front-drive version with a continuously variable automatic transmission that shifts continuously and seamlessly. The hottest new, however, is the Audi A4 with the CVT is actually quicker accelerating than the 6-speed manual!
But I digress.
The truck competition is even closer, I think. The Avalanche, Trailblazer and Liberty are all vehicles I have written about, and they deserve high status. However, the new Dodge Ram 1500 is possibly the most impressive pickup truck on the market in its newly redone form, with a high-tech overhead-cam 4.7 V8, extremely tight four-door cabin, and great performance. The new Ford Explorer has been completely redone, too, and it has the significant touches of having the floor lowered by 8 inches with the rear axle halfshafts ingeniously run through the side-beams of the chassis. It’s also bigger, along with having a much better stance. The Toyota Highlander is another outstanding and all-new truck, and Honda has redone the extremely popular CR-V compact sport-utility vehicle with better styling, a more potent engine and exceptional flexibility and performance.
My personal choice — in an extremely narrow split decision over the Ram, the Trailblazer and the CR-V, with some votes also going to the Explorer and Highlander — is the new Saturn VUE. This is an all-new compact sport-utility vehicle, with front-wheel-drive until it detects slippage, in which case it becomes all-wheel drive, and it has different styling, including a somewhat bizarre front end but an extremely attractive side and rear look. It also has the Saturn special composite plastic body panels, eliminating dent, chip and corrosion concerns. And, it has a continuously variable transmission, operating on a completely different theory from Audi. Every company is working on a CVT, but Audi’s is exceptional, and while the Saturn VUE version lacks the quick-accelerating performance of Audi’s, it does provide the benefit of smooth and constant upshifting without noticeable shiftpoints.
In my personal vote, I have a somewhat sliding system of rating style, performance, economy, overall feel and technology. I admit that I weigh more heavily on technology, because new features require the gamble of courage along with the brilliance of futuristic engineering. While the Audi and the VUE might rank highest high-tech as well as in overall cohesiveness of all its high-tech parts, the finalists also are armed with technology.
The Cadillac CTS, for example, is a futuristic design on top of the new General Motors Sigma platform. It shows that after the Cimarron and the Catera, which was based on a GM German Opel platform, Caddy has gotten it right. The compact Cadillac starts at under $30,000, and it is a strong performer with a new 3.2-liter V6, boasting dual overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. It runs strong and straight, handles with firm precision, and has tremendous room and trunk space. Think of it as a rear-wheel-drive Seville.
The Thunderbird is a neat little roadster, with a bolt-on hardtop if you don’t want just the convertible top. It has a great engine, the Jaguar-built 3.9-liter V8 used also in the Lincoln LS, although it also has only an automatic without even an auto-manual feature. The Thunderbird is a traffic-stopper, a real eye-catcher, also with rear-wheel drive. But it costs $40,000 to start with, and no matter how appealing it is, it still seems to be something of a bauble, a Christmas toy rather than a hard-core transportation vessel.
The Altima is almost overwhelming in its alteration from past versions. It gets a V6 for the first time, and it’s a 3.5-liter V6, with tremendous power. It also has been lengthened and increased in every dimension. In the past, the Altima was a snub-nosed, more compact challenger for the Accord and Camry, with a 4-cylinder only, while the bigger Maxima carried Nissan’s colors into battle with the V6. The Altima is good enough from every angle to deserve this status, and it only can beg the question about what Nissan plans to do with the Maxima.
On the truck side, the Avalanche is an enormously long Chevy pickup with full four doors, and a full pickup box, and with an intriguing little device that raises the rear window and lowers the rear wall, allowing you to have hauling space from the front bucket seats all the way to the tailgate. Personally, I don’t want to share my interior with the stuff I’d put in a pickup box, but that’s just me. The Avalanche is covered with plastic cladding, and it is massively designed.
The TrailBlazer is a gem. The all-new version of the Blazer, the TrailBlazer is smaller than the enormo SUVs from Chevy, the Tahoe and Suburban. It also has the high-tech new 4.2-liter in-line 6-cylinder engine, with tremendous power and performance. This, to me, is the cinch winner of the category, and was tied as top challenger to the VUE in my distribution of voting points.
The Liberty is fun and exciting as the replacement for the basic Cherokee, although I also found it taller and with a shorter wheelbase, which makes it bouncy and feeling instable in some circumstances. Everything works, however, and Jeeps are popular, and always have been.
The most significant thing about this year’s finalists, in my opinion, is simple. September 11, 2001, changed all our lives, and has fanned the flames of patriotism in all walks of life. I tried not to let that affect my objectivity in voting. It is perhaps just coincidence that all three truck finalists — the Avalanche, TrailBlazer and Liberty — and two of the three car finalists — the Cadillac CTS and the Thunderbird — are from traditional U.S. manufacturers. Only the Altima is the product of a foreign company, although some of the other most spectacular new products also came from foreign companies.
Maybe it’s just coincidence, and the Altima will be the car of the year. But maybe not, also. My guess is the Cadillac CTS, because it is more reasonably priced and more of an everyday car than the Thunderbird.
I also figure that there probably was more of a divergent array of votes spread among the candidates this year then ever before. That’s what makes the world go ’round, and the automotive world as well.
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