Escalade, ML500 and QX4 are three answers to luxury SUV quest
A few years ago, when vans and pickup trucks gave way to sport-utility vehicles, then SUVs expanded to include any and all shapes, sizes and manufacturers, we all might have wondered what it was all coming to, even if we had an idea how we got there.
Now it’s the 2002 model year, and we can take a look at the state of the art of luxury SUVs — those vehicles that have been festooned with dozens of extra little features to put them above and beyond the normal, run-of-the-mill $30,000-type SUVs. These are not to be confused with compact SUVs, which come in from $20,000-$25,000. No, these are the high-buck beasts, and they can be found being built by any self-respecting manufacturer which has already explored (exploited?) all manner of normalcy in the SUV biz.
Three good examples of luxury SUVs can be obtained from all different parts of our once-green globe.
From the U.S.A., we’ve got the Cadillac Escalade, which deserves the Cadillac grille and logo, designating the difference between the Escalade and the more mainstream Tahoe and/or Suburban.
From Japan, a good example is the Infiniti QX4, which is the mainstream Nissan Pathfinder bolstered by different sheetmetal and creature features.
And from Germany, Mercedes Benz sends us the ML500, which is an exercise in taking the first Mercedes all-terrain vehicle with an enlarged, 5-liter V8.
The penalty for buying a luxury SUV, of course, is the initial outlay of cash. With car manufacturers’ profit margins getting slimmer and slimmer on cars, they are more than compensating for any loss by making whopping profits on trucks. And no trucks are more profitable than luxury SUVs.
The QX4, which comes through Nissan’s upscale Infiniti stores, costs $38,215 in the form I drove it, which is moderate, actually, in the class of luxury SUVs. Base price was $35,550.
The Mercedes ML500 has a base price of $44,950, and as tested it listed for $49,385.
And the Cadillac Escalade had a base of $50,285, and a sticker total of $52,535.
CADILLAC ESCALADE
The General Motors big boats had the large SUV world to themselves with the Suburban, which dates back to the days when big “panel-truck” buyers needed such beasts for work, and bought them for that purpose. The Tahoe and GMC versions such as the Yukon spun off from the Suburban, and by the time the SUV craze hit a peak, it also spun upward, to include the Escalade.
To give the Escalade a proper amount of distinction, it gets a big, unique grille on the outside, and so many little feature touches inside that you could get completely lost trying to figure out exactly which button is to control what feature. If you wanted to drive the Escalade at night, and you had more patience than I, you could do a careful scan of every tiny little light that designates every tiny little switch, and you could get the number up into the 70s or 80s.
Very impressive. And, needlessly complicated. The trouble with taking an established older vehicle and upscaling it comprehensively is that you veer farther and farther away from sound ergonomics. For example, somebody decided to add a switch that electrically could cause the outside mirrors to fold in flush to the body. So the switch is placed arbitrarily down ahead of the driver’s left knee on the lower dash panel. Maybe you would want to use a switch like that, and if so, maybe you could find it. But remember it instinctively? Hardly.
But GM has done a great job of updating and keeping the big SUVs contemporary. The Escalade claims to be the most powerful SUV, with a 6.0-liter V8 engine that may be old-school in pushrod design, but it churns out 345 horsepower. You may recall a recent editorial I read somewhere, which claimed that it was unfair to try to force laws of increased fuel economy, because it would cause auto manufacturers to stop building larger, more profitable vehicles, with adequate power. The Escalade has “adequate power,” even if you need to haul a boat roughly the size of the Queen Mary.
Leather seating with Zebrano wood trim set off the interior, 10-way power front seats with heated cushions, heated outboard seats in the second row, and removable third row seats, with split fold-down and stowable folding ability are nice features. A Bose premium audio system with 6-disc and cassette players, and controls on the steering wheel with separate rear controls and earphones add another classy feature. GM’s OnStar system of guidance and positioning is also standard.
Naturally there is all-wheel drive, with an automatic torque-splitting system, a four-speed automatic transmission, road-sensing suspension with automatic leveling, and the Escalade also has traction control, 4-wheel disc brakes, towing package with the harness already installed, front and side front airbags, and an Ultrasonic rear system to beep and warn you when you’re backing up and getting closer to another object.
The above features all are standard, with the only options being a $1,550 power glass sunroof.
The huge Escalade handles well, goes with power, and if you can get around fuel economy of barely 10-13 (EPA estimates claim 12 city and 15 highway), and you need enormous room and want overwhelming power, the Escalade could be the vehicle of your dreams.
INFINITI QX4
The Nissan Pathfinder always has been among my favorite SUVs, so when Nissan went upscale with the QX4 for its Infiniti branch, it had to be similarly impressive. While comparatively inexpensive in this company — costing about $14,000 less than the Escalade — it has about all the power and luxury touches you might want.
The engine is Nissan’s heralded, high-tech V6 engine, measuring 3.5 liters and putting out 240 horsepower through dual-overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder. The 4-speed automatic and all-mode 4-wheel-drive work smoothly, and the lighter and far more agile QX4 still has a 5,000-pound towing capacity.
The liftgate has a glass hatch, with blackened privacy glass on the five rear windows. Integrated step rails suggest you might really use the roof rack, and the 3-spoke alloy wheels are stylish departures even for luxury SUVs, and they house large 16-inch wheels — same as the much bigger Escalade. Xenon headlights give off brilliant, bluish light, and foglights do an excellent job of lighting the shoulders. The QX4 also has power, heated side mirrors, and the driver and front passenger have cut glass windows with ultraviolet shielding.
Bird’s-eye maple wood trim is the real thing, and the leather on the seats and steering wheel is nice. The auto air conditioning has microfiltration, and the audio system is a Bose 150-watt device with 6 speakers, and an in-dash 6-disc player along with cassette fill the thing with sound. A homelink universal transceiver is also standard. For safety, the QX4 has pipe-style side door guard beams, and the body has front and side airbags, with active head restraints, and the keyless entry system also triggers a security system, with a vehicle immobilizer system.
Options on the test vehicle include a premium package, with 17-inch alloy wheels, genuine wood on the steering wheel, memory seat on the driver’s power seat, and audio controls (along with standard cruise) on the steering wheel, plus a power glass sunroof that tilts and opens, and a towing package.
Being lighter and more agile, the QX4 feels quicker and more responsive than the big Escalade, or most other large SUVs, and it still delivers close to the EPA max of 15 miles per gallon city, 18 highway.
MERCEDES ML500
Mercedes had a winner when it decided to go SUVing, when it brought out the ML320, with a 3.2-liter V6. At introductory time, I drove one of them around the Road America race track at Elkhart Lake, Wis., and hit 110 miles per hour going into 90-degree corners, then zooming around the turns with ease. I observed a professional race driver hitting 120 in the same spots. There are not many other SUVs that I would trust at those speeds.
A few years have passed, and competitors have upped the ante of power, so Mercedes has responded predicatbly. Not only more power, but 288 exquisite horsepower at 5,600 RPMs and 325 foot-pounds of torque at a mere 2,700 RPMs, staying constant until 4,250 revs, from a jewel-like 5-liter V8, with single overhead cam and three valves per cylinder.
A 5-speed automatic transmission has driver-adaptive touch shifting, a 2-speed transfer case that definitely will hold the vehicle in check down the steepest off-road grade, and 4-wheel traction control. Independent suspension with front and rear double A-arms and swaybars make the ML500 one of the most sophisticated SUVs ever built, with torsion-bar springs, rear coild springs, gas-pressure dampers, and 17-inch wheels, standard.
Burl walnut is the Mercedes wood trim of choice, and the leather is lsupple and plush on the heated front seats, with their 8-way power settings. A Homelink device with global positioning system, and all the cupholders you’d want, plus four front and rear 12-volt power outlets and a trip computer, with CD and phone wiring in place help make your travel pleasurable.
Dual-stage airbags, front and side, with side windowbags and 3-point harness anchors in all seating positions, make you feel secure inside the fully boxed steel frame, with its reinforced body cage and front and rear crumple zones. The ML500 has gotten top grades in crash tests.
Options on the test vehicle included a memory feature for the power front seats and a glass sunroof with power rear quarter windows, plus a Bose audio system with CD changer, runs the price right up to the $50,000 barrier. EPA figures estimate 14 miles per gallon city, 17 highway.
Of the three, the Escalade is the giant, big-family hauler, while the Mercedes is the sporty-luxury extreme, and the QX4 is something of a compromise between the other two. They all have the ability to handle snow, sleet and slippery hillsides, and they could transport any family anywhere with style and class.
World-class Passat and Jetta miss final list for car of the year
[[[[cutlines:
1/ The 2002 Volkswagen Jetta, left, showed off its compact lines alongside the larger, sleeker and more expensive Passat; from the nose, the Passat (left) is smoothed where the Jetta is grooved. The Jetta stands out in silhouette, while the Passat’s longer, sleeker lines cover its greater rear seatroom. ]]]]]]]
It’s that time of year again, in the automotive business. Must be something like when they give the finalists for the Academy Awards, or the Emmy or Grammy competition, but where cars and trucks are concerned, this is the time that the jury empowered to vote for the International Car of the Year award must narrow down the list from all the qualified vehicles down to a workable final 10.
I’ve been honored to be on that jury for most of the past decade, and it’s a responsibility you can’t take lightly. The rules are simple, with the only candidates those that are all new or significantly enough changed to be considered new. There are something like 50 automotive journalists who vote, with the winner named in January, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
Here, listed alphabetically, are the 10 automobile finalists: Acura RSX, Audi A4, Cadillac CTS, Ford Thunderbird, Jaguar X-Type, Mercedes C-Class coupe, Nissan Altima, Subaru Impreza, and Toyota Camry.
Among the trucks, the finalists are: Chevrolet Avalanche, Chevy TrailBlazer, Dodge Ram, Ford Explorer, Honda CR-V, Jeep Liberty, Land Rover Freelander, Saturn VUE, and Toyota Highlander.
These are all worthy candidates, and I think more than in any year in the past half-dozen, it’s wide-open. There have been years when cars such as the New Beetle or the Chrysler PT Cruiser were can’t-miss predictions.
As we get into test drives of the finalists, they will make it into column evaluations, but first, let’s look at the very impressive list of those that DIDN’T make the finalist group.
Among the cars that were nominated but didn’t make it are the BMW M3, Honda Civic Si, Hyundai Sonata, Kia Sedona van, the Lexus ES300, Lexus SC430 sports car, Mazda Protégé, Mitusbishi Lancer, Nissan Sentra SE-R, and the Volkswagen Passat.
Trucks that missed were the GMC Envoy, Buick Rendezvous, Isuzu Axiom, Lincoln Blackwood, Mercury Mountaineer, Oldsmobile Bravada and Suzuki XL-7.
Some tough ones to exclude, in my opinion. The trucks weren’t so bad, because the Envoy and Bravada share mechanical stuff with the TrailBlazer, so they’re represented. Same with the Mountaineer, which is represented by the Explorer.
But I had a terrible time with the cars. I suggested expanding the list beyond the normal 10, because there were so many good candidates this year. The Lexus ES300 is impressive, but it does share platform and parts with the Camry. The Lexus SC430, however, is a pretty special sports car, but costly, which might have caused it to be voted out. The M3, Protégé, Lancer and Sentra SE-R and Civic Si are sporty new models of vehicles that came out a year ago.
But the one that was perhaps the biggest oversight was the Volkswagen Passat, which was totally redone shortly after the first of the year, and was listed as a 2001 1/5 model. For 2002, it doesn’t get redone again, but it does get the Audi developed V6, measuring 2.8-liters, with five valves per cylinder, variable intake and valve timing, and it pumps out 190 horsepower in the Passat, which raises it up to be a top challenger as a family sedan.
True, you can get it loaded up with options, as the test car was, and run the price sticker up to $30,000, but if you shave off enough options you also can lower it to about $28,750 for the top of the line GLX model.
That gives the Passat, which has smooth and flowing aerodynamic lines, tremendous power, and its improved suspension and front-wheel-drive with traction control and anti-slip regulation, the ability to zip right up to cruising speed, and hold it easily on the freeway.
What goes without saying is that the new Passat is also loaded with safety equipment, earning it the rating as the best vehicle at withstanding damage in crash testing in the family sedan category.
Similarly, the new 2002 Volkswagen Jetta wasn’t even a candidate for car of the year, because it came out a year ago. But the change from 2001 is significant. The test car I drove had the 1.8-liter 4-cylinder from Audi, with five-valve technology, variable valve timing, and a low-pressure turbocharger. Changing the electronic engine management chip has become a huge element at Audi and Volkswagen, and the latest trick from the engineers is to increase the horsepower in the new Jetta from 150 to 180 horsepower.
The silver test car I drove had a 5-speed manual shifter, and when you started up, and made a right turn, then stood on it, the Jetta would squeal the tires.
Like the Passat, which has a much roomier rear seat and trunk, the Jetta was declared the safest compact sedan in crash tests. It feels strong and substantial, and it has 17-inch wheels that increase the stability and cornering of the Jetta. With leather seats and a sunroof and a hiked up stereo system, the price can run up to $23,000. But that’s an outstanding price, considering what you get.
No, the Jetta wasn’t revised enough to have a shot at being a candidate, but the new one runs away from the 2001 model.
Late in the 2001 model run, I wrote about the new GTI and Beetle, both of which had the same 1.8 4-cylinder engine. Both performed well, but the 2002 model is on another plateau because of its upgraded power. That little 1.8 is a jewel, performing like a much bigger engine when you hit the gas, but also capable of giving you 26 miles per gallon even when your combined city and highway driving is done with a heavy foot.
Another thing you might notice from the car of the year list is that the Cadillac CTS, which starts with a rebadging of a European Opel model, and the Thunderbird are the only two of the 10 finalists built by a domestic U.S. company. It’s better with the trucks, where six of the finalists are domestics.
That doesn’t mean anything more than the fact that GM, Ford and Chrysler were pretty busy last year turning out new models, and they are understandably lighter in renovated models for 2002. Criteria are tough, though, and if the Volkswagen Passat or Jetta didn’t make the list of finalists, they may not be new enough or revised enough for this year. But there’s no question about it, the Passat and Jetta are among the world’s premier family sedans.
New Saturn SUV gives GM technological ‘VUE’ from the top
[[[[cutlines:
1/ The 2002 Saturn VUE, the first General Motors compact SUV, ranges from $18,000-$23,000..
2/ Well designed, with polymer body panels, the VUE is front-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive.
3/ Spacious VUE interior adapts to haul people and/or long objects in comfort and style.
4/ A continuously variable automatic transmission joins 5-speed manual and automatic. ]]]]]
When General Motors started up its Saturn branch, it was sort of a catch-all for any of those rebellious sorts within the corporation who dared to think that GM could indeed compete with the best compact imports from Japan and Germany. Then the rebels went out and proved they were right. Now it’s a different decade, and GM is sending Saturn out there once again to take on the world — the world of compact Sport-Utility Vehicles.
Saturn is just now introducing the VUE, which is pronounced “view” and not spelled out, thank you. The VUE was first displayed at the auto show circuit last year, and it was a major hit among the media and show-goers. It is smaller than the mainstream SUVs such as the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, and aimed at competing directly with the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Jeep Liberty, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Nissan Xterra, and Mazda Tribute, and any other compact SUVs that are out there.
I had a chance to make a quick trip to Greenville, South Carolina, for the introduction of the VUE, and the vehicle held a lot of surprises. The General Motors staff — you could probably find them VUE-finders — displayed the vehicles and turned loose the nation’s auto media in them, then announced we were prohibited from writing about actual driving reflections until Dec. 1. They said the embargo was so the automotive magazines could have equal chance to write about the introduction. The reality, of course, is that the automotive magazines will include their reviews in their December issues, which will be on newsstands early in November.
Whatever, we can discuss a lot of things about the VUE without talking about how it drives (swiftly and smoothly), or how it handles (with excellent stability), or how much fuel economy it has (24-28 miles per gallon), and save all those things for December. Wink-wink.
There are several breakthrough elements to the VUE, and here they are in a nutshell:
Price is right — The base VUE (the VUE from the bottom?) starts at $16,835, and options can run up to a maximum of $23,085, making it far more reasonably priced than virtually all its competitors. Base units are 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual, front-wheel-drive only; costlier ones add all-wheel-drive and either a 5-speed automatic or the new VTi transmission.
Size is great — The long-wheelbase design aids stability, while the car-based platform allows low entry level, and fully adjustable seats to either ride five or have up to 63.5 cubic feet of cargo, and the Saturn staple of polymer plastic body panels eliminates chipping and corrosion as a problem..
Technology advances — Start with two major high-tech items: First, a continuously variable automatic transmission that constantly increases or decreases the gearing seamlessly, without jerking between different gears; second an electronic power-steering unit that provides full boost for parking maneuvers and goes away when steering lightness is unnecessary at higher speeds.
The all-wheel-drive system is not revolutionary, but it might be totally logical and economical, especially for snow-belt customers.
The engines available in the VUE come from the Saturn L, which is the larger sedan added to the compact original a couple of year ago. That car ran engines based on GM’s European connections, which include Opel and now Saab. Long criticized for a lack of high-tech, overhead-camshaft engines because of their higher production costs, GM has made a good move to make the so-called Ecotec 2.2-liter 4-cylinder come into wider use throughout the different brands.
That’s the basic Saturn L engine, and it is the base engine for the VUE as well, as GM’s first truly global engine, because it is being built by modular design in various locations around the world, including the U.S. It has dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, turning out 143 horsepower and 152 foot-pounds of torque, and is used in both the base front-wheel drive and the all-wheel drive applications.
The 2.2 with the 5-speed stick is the one that comes in at $16,835, a price incomprehensible to SUV shoppers who have been looking at price tags that start in the 20s. The 4-cylinder with the continuously variable automatic transmission is $17,775, and adding all-wheel-drive to the mix runs it up to $19,370.
Moving upscale, the Saturn L’s 3.0-liter V6, also a dual-overhead cam, 4-valve per cylinder engine, comes in the all-wheel-drive top-shelf VUE, with a 5-speed automatic, for $23,085. The 3-liter V6 has 181 horsepoer and 195 foot-pounds of torque.
The all-wheel drive system runs front-drive all the time, and when the fronts slip, a viscous coupling transmits as much power as necessary to the rear wheels. Slick, and economical, and in most cases, the front-wheel-drive would probably be all you’d need to negotiate all but the most serious icy situations.
The big news is the transmission. First, a 5-speed manual is good, and if you’re going to an automatic, especially with a smaller engine, having a 5-speed automatic is a big benefit. But the Saturn VUE gets to be first to display the continuously-variable automatic as a third choice for transmissions. It is called VTi, which first was made up to mean “variable transmission with intelligence.” Marketing types decided to drop the “intelligence,” but kept the “i” in the nickname anyway.
There are different types of variable transmissions, which all manufacturers are striving to perfect these days. Audi has a new one, which works on a pull-belt system. The Saturn VUE works on a push-belt plan, with a snake-like steel belt, comprised of 472 small, flat elements, which are forced on their way around two pulleys. The VUE belt is always being compressed, with one element being pushed by the element behind it, and as speed increases, so does the pressure on the belt, and as it widens, the first pulley is forced to widen. The best way to visualize this is to consider a 10-speed (now, 21-speed) bicycle, which shifts by transferring the chain to a bigger gear.
The question remains (at least until December 1, or whenever a monthly magazine violates that date) whether the VUE with the VTi will have enough low-end punch for power-crazed SUV drivers, but we can only assume that it will be extremely smooth, without the hunting and downshifting of automatics on smaller engines in other vehicles.
That holds great promise for lightweight towing, as well. One of the toughest things on smaller engines is the hunting and shifting of automatics when pulling a load, especially on hills. With the VTi, going up a hill, even with a trailer, means your RPMs go up, but there is no clunky up- and downshifting.
The size, workmanship and unique features are sure to make the VUE a big hit. The strut suspension with stabilizer bars front and rear, and coil springs at all four independently sprung corners will make the VUE handle with stability (we assume), and there is a traction-control system that uses a torque-reduction system to balance power from side to side, for use with front-wheel-drive only.
For a company under fire for not keeping up with the high-tech competitors, GM has been led to the forefront by its Saturn branch, and the big surprise of the continously-variable transmission and other technical gems on the VUE is only exceeded by the fact that the Saturn VUE offers all these goodies in a good-looking SUV package, for an extremely attractive price.
Audi improves on classic A4, with high-tech engines, transmission
[[[[[[[cutlines:
1/ Everything from engines to transmissions to structur is new about the 2002 Audi A4, but it retains the familiar look of the 7-year-old classic.
2/ Most notable about the renovation of the A4 is the sculptured new angle of the rear decklid, resembling the larger A6.
3/ The A6 gains new power and shares Audi’s innovative continuously-variable “multitronic” automatic transmission.
4/ For 2002, the A6 wagon adds a sporty version with more power and handling, introduced as the S6 Avant.
5/ The clean, classy Audi interior has been altered, and the automatic can be shifted by thumb controls on the steering wheel. ]]]]]]]]]
Automotive historians have charted the astonishing progress made by Audi since 1994, which coincides with the lifespan of an exceptional sedan named the A4. But after seven years of existence, the time has come to introduce a new A4, a daunting challenge for the company from Ingolstadt, Germany, which had to try to improve the classic sedan that saved the company.
Audi engineers and designers never flinched, and the 2002 A4 is going to rate as the world’s best sedan for the money by consumers who most carefully scrutinize everything available for under $27,000, and particularly the ones who drive in the Northland’s ice and snow for half the year.
The new A4 was introduced in the past week to automotive journalists along with its larger brother, the A6, and a sporty A6 wagon called the S6 Avant, at an Audi display in Chantilly, Va. Driving the cars over the twisty, hilly roads of rural Virginia was an excellent way to put the new cars through some brief but rigorous paces. They excelled.
The A has a newly designed rear end and subtle redesigns to the rest of its form. It is stronger, stiffer (with ligher alloy parts on the 4-link suspension components), safer and slightly lengthened to enhance interior room, which was one of the few places the original A4 could rationally be criticized. The new A4 is 2.3 inches longer, with 1.3 inches longer wheelbase, 1.3 inches wider, and a half-inch higher, which equates to slightly more headroom, shoulder room and legroom, front and rear, with the biggest improvement being almost a full inch greater rear legroom. The legroom is enhanced further by increasing the fore-aft travel of the front buckets by 2 inches, and increasing the opening under those seats by 4 inches, allowing rear seat occupants to shove those Size 9s farther under the seats.
Having already established itself as a standard for good handling, good performance, good economy, exceptional durability, great traction of standard front-wheel drive, or the incredible traction of the optional quattro all-wheel-drive system, the A4 improves on each of those categories for 2002. Safety is among those improvements, with a more rigid body, and sideguard inflatable curtains to supplement front and side airbags and help protect against angular crashes, as well as head-on and side impacts, plus improved steering and a brake assist that can detect a panic stop and immediately put full braking force to work.
But the fun stuff is under the hood. The iron-block 2.8-liter V6 of past years was upgraded a few years ago with the addition of dual-overhead cams and 5-valve cylinder heads. It is now replaced by a new 3.0-liter, all aluminum V6 with the 5-valve heads and DOHC design, developing 14 percent more power (220 horsepower at 6,300 RPMs and 221 foot-pounds of torque at 3,200 revs), while weighing 44 pounds less than its iron predecessor.
The base engine is the 1.8-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder, which is the engine on which Audi introduced 5-valve technology and an electronic management system to coordinate the turbo boost into an amazingly flat torque curve, with 170 horsepower for the new model run at 5,900 RPMs, and its 166 foot-pounds of torque peaks at 1,950 RPMs and stays flat all the way up to 5,000 RPMs.
Both of these engines are governed by variable-timing of the camshaft to adjust the opening and closing of the valves as you drive. The 3.0 V6 was developed with Audi sharing technology with race-bred engineers from Cosworth, which is now an Audi subsidiary. Both the 3.0 and the 1.8T meet the stringent standards for ULEV — ultra low emissions vehicles — meaning the 1.8 is the first turbocharged engine to qualify.
It has always been amusing to note that Audi insists on calling its all-wheel-drive system “quattro,” with a lower-case “q,” even though major magazines such as Car & Driver, and Automobile, consistently misidentify it as “Quattro,” with a capital “Q.” And for 2002, almost as if testing journalists, Audi strikes again. It’s new (to the U.S.) continuously variable automatic transmission is named “multitronic,” with a small “m.”
But there is nothing “small” about the strides Audi has made in transmissions. You can get a better-shifting 5-speed manual transmission with the 1.8T, in either front-drive or quattro, and a new 6-speed manual with the 3.0 V6. If you want to go automatic, you get two amazing choices. With quattro A4s powered by either engine, you get a 5-speed Tiptronic automatic that can be switched to operate via thumb-switch controls on the steering wheel. With front-drive A4s powered by either engine, you get the continuously-variable transmission that feels like it never shifts, even though it is always shifting.
All of the assembled test cars handled flawlessly, and while the quattros feel as if they’re on rails, the front-drive models may be a little more agile-feeling. But both engines seem perfectly suited to the variety of transmissions, and even though I’m a stick-shift guy, I must admit I’d choose one of the automatics in the A4, just for the hills of Duluth.
The larger, roomier A6 also has the multitronic available, also only on front-drive. The A6 has the 3.0 V6 as a base engine, and also offers a 4.2-liter, 40-valve V8 or a biturbo 2.7-liter V6 with 250 horsepower. Audi intends to add the multitronic to its quattro stable within a few months, and, Audi engineer Marc Trahan confirmed, the intention is to let the multitronic take over, completely phasing out the other automatic Audi transmission.
The price list, in fact, was about as impressive as the notebook-full of features on the new Audis. The A4 starts at $24,900 with the 1.8T, front-wheel-drive and a 5-speed manual; it goes to $26,050 if you add the multitronic CVT, and to $26,650 for the manual with quattro, and $27,800 for the Tiptronic automatic quattro. Moving up to the new 3.0 V6, the front-drive with multitronic is $31,390, and it goes to $32,090 for the quattro with the 6-speed manual, and to a top of $33,140 for the quattro with Tiptronic automatic.
CONSTANTLY SHIFTLESS
After waiting years to see manufacturers bring continuously-variable automatics to the real world, how rare it is that right after testing the new Saturn VUE compact sport-utility vehicle with VTi continuously-variable transmission, we now get introduced to a completely different method of continuously-variable automatic. The Saturn method is to compress the little links of the flexible belt that pushes the belt forward from one pulley to another. It works smoothly, although its biggest problem is that it isn’t very quick starting up at low RPMs.
The Audi version, by contrast, has little cogs on the outside of each of 1,025 links of its belt, and they lock into the outer walls to pull the belt from one pulley to the other, rather than push it through a stepless and seamless upshifting or downshifting pattern.
The Audi engineers have a step up on their competition because their multitronic has been developed over the last 10 years, and has been available on European Audis since 1999. If it can handle 140 miles per hour on the autobahns, we can assume it will work flawlessly at 70 or 75 in the U.S. of A. In brief but spirited driving, it worked best when left in the automatic setting, rather than trying to hand-hold it at certain levels.
Trahan, one of those rare automotive engineers who can translate technical terms into useful, real-world concepts, explained some of the intricacies.
“This is our transmission,” he said, with justifiable pride. “It has been internally developed over 10 years, and 6 million miles of testing. There are 27 patents on the transmission. Other CVTs I’ve driven have a flimsy feel, rubber-band-like. Usually, you have to get up to about 20 percent throttle, then it goes up and plateaus. The multitronic has a more nearly upward slope, and our objective was to make it as quick as a manual, as economical as a manual, and smoother and more refined than other automatics.
“It is smaller and lighter than most automatics, with magnesium housing, and the electronics and hydraulics contained inside. There is no torque converter, because we didn’t need it, because we have lower gearing on takeoff and a 2-stage clutch. While most automatics might have gearing from first to fifth, or first to sixth, the multitronic is more like from second-to-12th, almost double the range of gear ratios from ultra low to ultra high.”
While every manufacturer would like us to believe their automatics can be as swift accelerating as a stick-shift, Trahan has the numbers to back him up. Consider that the previous pair of transmissions were a 5-speed manual and the Tiptronic automatic, which could be switched into a parallel gate to be shifted manually as a clutchless automanual.
“Our previous A6 would go 0-100 kilometers (0-62 mph) with the Tiptronic,” said Trahan. “And it would do it in 8.2 with the stick. But it will do it in 8.1 with the multitronic, so it’s actually faster than the manual, and it also gets improved fuel economy.”
One of the best features of the Tiptronic is that drivers can have the pleasure of controlling upshifts and downshifts manually, without a clutch, whenever they chose to vary from the simple automatic setting. And just in case you don’t appreciate how thorough Audi is in assessing its market, you can select six different “gears” in the multitronic, even though there are no different gears on the continuously-shifting belt.
“We know a large percentage of our drivers like the performance feel of shifting the Tiptronic,” Trahan said. “So we programmed in six different Tiptronic-like speeds with software, to give you a little bit of the feel of shift-points.”
Now, that’s thorough. Build ’em a completely seamless-shifting automatic, but make sure the uneasy can switch to make it feel like it has shiftpoints.
Thunderbird roars back to life with future-retro styling appeal
[[[cutlines:
1/ Reflecting its heritage of the 1950s — “Don’t call it retro” — the 2002 Ford Thunderbird is a promote-able eye-catcher.
2/ The long tail is finished with a rear end that could be the front end if you replaced the taillights with headlights.
3/ There’s enough yellow on the Thunderbird’s interior to make you feel sunny on dreary days — or long for fake woodgrain.
4/ Ford has combined trendy/sporty interior cues, and a potent, high-tech engine, but averted high-performing Thunderbird.
5/ On the test-drive $40,000 Thunderbird, there was a foglight switch, but no foglights. ]]]]]]
In a perfect world, the 2002 Ford Thunderbird would roll freely into our consciousness as a pleasurable icon to prove that what once was fun about Ford could be again. And the car has enough positive features to qualify as an attention-grabbing 2-seater that could be a major boost for Ford.
Things are not all fun and frolic for Ford these days. The Explorer mess with Firestone is one example of how things can go wrong, and the introduction of an all-new Explorer for 2002 has been hindered rather than seen as an easy solution to the situation. And last Monday, the depths of Ford Motor Company’s turmoil became stunningly apparent when Jac Nasser, the dynamic, high-profile chief executive officer, was forced to resign and replaced by Bill Ford — William Clay Ford Jr.
Environmentalists should applaud Bill Ford’s takeover, because he was something of the family rebel, playing folk guitar, studying Zen, and — believe it or not — confessing publicly that automobile companies and their trucks were greatly responsible for greenhouse gas problems. That’s a subject that has drawn clear lines of demarcation between the U.S. auto industry and environmentalists.
The Thunderbird might, after all, be a perfect vehicle to roll out in these shaky times for Ford, even though the car has been delayed by production slowdowns and attempts to get the quality control right after recent criticism plagued the introduction of the Escape and the Focus.
One of the finalists for the International Car of the Year award, the Thunderbird is in short supply at introduction, so as a journalist with a vote on the jury to pick that winner, I got a chance to drive one for an abbreviated three-day stretch. In those three days, I must admit I was impressed by how many people strained to drive alongside to get a better look at the Tbird, and how many more people came from out of nowhere to surround the car and peek through the windows at the interior everytime I parked it.
I found some very impressive features about the Thunderbird, and some things deserving criticism.
First, it clearly is a projection at what an original 1955-57 era Thunderbird might be if it had continued to be made as a sporty coupe, instead of carrying on the name while growing larger and larger until it morphed into a full-sized car that some would call oversized. As a 2-seat roadster, which can be bought with a removable hardtop that carries on the round opera-window rear-side treatment, the Thunderbird also promises performance, even if a combination luxury-sporty fashion.
It delivers, partially. The engine is a 3.9-liter V8, which may sound familiar to Ford fans, because it also can be obtained in the Lincoln LS, a car that I found the most impressive and contemporary Lincoln ever. The engine has its roots back to Jaguar, which was taken over in recent years by Ford. While Ford is capable of making very good and high-tech engines, it allowed Jaguar to carry on with the creation of the new V8, and Ford deserves applause for that move.
Jaguar built a light, compact V8, with dual-overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, and it was heralded for being lighter and more potent than a similarly sized four-cam, multi-valve V8 being built by BMW. The only engine that rivals that in V8 form from Ford is the hand-built 4.6 V8 in the Mustang Cobra. At any rate, Jaguar used its new V8 in its sports car and in its sedan, and worked a trade with its new parent to sent the engines to be used as the Lincoln LS upgrade while getting Ford’s Duratec V6 for the base engine in the new X-Type Jag sedan that has high hopes for U.S. sales.
So Ford built the Thunderbird by chopping down the length of the LS chassis, and mounting that potent V8 under the hood. It has 252 horsepower in Tbird trim, which is a lot. Ford also offers a 5-speed automatic transmission, which is both good news and bad news. The good news is that a 5-speed automatic is much more efficient than a 4-speed or a now-outdated 3-speed configuration. The bad news isn’t horrible, but that automatic is the only transmission you can get in the Thunderbird.
Because of its aim as a boulevardier rather than a sports car, there is probably little reason to arm the Tbird with a manual shift, but an automanual, shiftable by spring-loaded hand shifts, are so commonplace nowadays at all companies other than Ford and General Motors that the Tbird would seem to be the perfect place for such a transmission alternative. But no. So in normal, everyday driving, you might find the Thunderbird is a nice, smooth sporty car, but you would guess the performance is nothing to rave about.
You can, however, hammer the gas pedal, hard and often, and get the little V8 to rev high and show its potency. It just seems a shame that you have to work so hard to find the performance that Ford chose to make obscure.
The Thunderbird is heavier than it needs to be, too, and the suspension is softer than it needs to be to accommodate U.S. buyers who might still want to be insulated from the flat precision of modern suspensions. Again, a departure from its sporty potential.
As for the styling, that’s subjective. Most people find it appealing, and some find it an absolute knockout. I like the look from the front, and the long-tailed flat lines of the silhouette are fine. The rear end seems less-attractive to me, because everytime I see it, with those distinctive round taillights carved into the fenders, I can’t help but think that clear lenses on those taillights instead of the red lenses would make it look like the front end.
Up front, I like the egg-crate grille, but the first time I drove the Thunderbird at night, I was surprised. I like good headlights, and I prefer great ones. I turned the rotating knob to turn on the headlights, and they came on. Then I pulled the little raised-ribbed part of the knob to turn on the foglights, and the switch responded with a nice, firm click. But there was no discernible addition to the light being cast up front.
Because I drive a lot at night, on all kinds of roadways, I appreciate the width of well-aimed foglights, to see those deer on the shoulders as soon as possible, and before they decide they might dash out in front of you. I was amazed to get out of the car and find that there were no foglights on the Thunderbird, only the switch. And this car listed for $40,000. If I plunked that kind of cash down for a sporty roadster, and had to either special-order or go out and buy some aftermarket foglights, I would be perturbed.
The other thing is the color. Ford has done great things with paint jobs in recent years, and this, too, is subjective. It happens that I don’t care for yellow cars, although I did own one once that was bumblebee-like, and I have test-driven various recent cars that were painted such a bright yellow that you felt the car glowed in the dark. But the test Thunderbird, which was yellow, was a pale, nearly pastel yellow. It seemed brighter, in fact, when you were inside the car.
I drove up the West Hillside of Duluth on a grey, bleak sort of a day last week, and I thought with optimism that the sun was coming out. Suddenly I realized that it was not, but that all that yellow — on the dashboard, the seats, the steering wheel even, was giving off a yellowish glow to my eyes. So maybe that’s good. It can bring sunlight, pale as it may be, to the bleakest of grey days.
I’ll take blue. Or black, or silver or red, or even white. And not on my steering wheel or dashboard, thank you. In fact, the yellow interior of the Thunderbird trim was almost enough to make me renounce my long-standing dislike for phony woodgrain interiors. Almost.
Ford marketeers keep stressing that we shouldn’t call it “retro,” and yet it’s hard to imagine a more retro vehicle than the Thunderbird, unless it is Chrysler’s PT Cruiser or the Volkswagen New Beetle. Both of those cars have been landslide hits, and if the Thunderbird mimics them in sales as much as in concept, everyone from Ford executives to marketeers to salesfolks will be thrilled.
The test car was a soft-top, but the optional bolt-on hardtop would probably be a big hit in the Northland. It also, of course, is front-engine with rear-drive, which will make it an automatic handful on slippery hillsides.
But those are nitpicks when we’re talking about serious icons, which the Thunderbird is. Ford is hoping the car will have a shot at the 2002 International Car of the Year award, and it certainly does have a chance, already being one of 10 finalists. The competition is fierce, however. It would seem to me that adding a manual shifter, or at least a clutchless automanual, possibly with a more agile sports handling package, might enhance the Tbird’s chances.
But, judging by the people who parked their cars and walked across the street to ogle the Thunderbird — yellow and all — the Thunderbird is guaranteed to be a hit whether it wins the car-of-the-year vote or not.
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