VUE gives Saturn a look at Escape’s compact SUV domain
Automotive giants General Motors and Ford have been slugging it out for years in the car business, but most specifically in the thriving truck market. The Ford and Chevrolet full-size pickup trucks have run 1-2, respectively, in total sales for a full generation of buyers, and the competition has roared on into compact pickups, and then into the sport-utility vehicle craze.
But while both companies have SUVs ranging from full-size to humungous, Ford gained a major edge when it came out with the very popular Escape, which became the first strong domestic challenger to the very strong crop of import brand compact SUVs. General Motors countered this year with the Saturn VUE, which may not be aimed at the Escape as much as it was to give the specialty Saturn brand an SUV of its own.
They do, however, appeal to the same type of people, those who want the assets of an SUV with all-wheel drive and the hauling capacity of a tall station wagon, but without the mandatory fuel penalties of the larger, overweight trucks.
HereÂ’s how they stacked up during recent test drives:
SATURN VUE
In an attempt to make the VUE a bit different in the same way Saturn cars split off from the mainstream, it was given the benefit of plastic body panels, which naturally fight corrosion. While the looks of the outside are totally subjective, I happen to like the VUE because it looks different from the routine little – and not so little – boxes that most SUVs resemble.
The front is sort of stacked, but the silhouette is aided by a rear-slanted diagonal pillar behind the rear seat, and the roof and rear of the Vue are contoured in a shapely fashion. The bright red paint job also helped make the VUE stand out in a crowd, and there is a substantial amount of plastic cladding to protect the lower body from gravel and road slop.
Climbing inside, my first opinion was that the soft velour seats were too soft. The seats need more support. The instruments are OK, and the center dash audio and heat/air controls are well laid out.
I donÂ’t care for the power window arrangement, with the control switches on the console, flanking the shift lever. The two left-side window controls are on the left and the right on the right, which makes sense, and gives the front passenger an easy reach to that windowÂ’s control. But my instincts are to grope for the controls on the door panel, and once you put them on the floor console, and separate them, it requires looking away from the road to locate and operate them.
The base VUE has a 2.2-liter 4-cylinder, with 143 horsepower and 152 foot-pounds of torque. The test VUE came with the optional 3-liter V6, which steps up in horsepower to 181 and in torque to 195 foot-pounds. Towing capacity is 2,500 pounds, which isnÂ’t overpowering, but itÂ’s good for light trailers.
The VUE isnÂ’t designed for heavy-duty hauling, of course, but to meet the requirements of a family hauler. The VUE can be obtained with a continuously variable transmission on front-wheel-drive versions. The test vehicle had a 5-speed automatic, and it deserves some major credits. The redline on the dual overhead-camshaft V6 is 7,000, and when you try to accelerate into swift-moving traffic, the VUE holds its shift points to 6,000 even on moderately hard throttle, which gets you well up into the power range.
So acceleration and power are more than adequate from the V6 and its perky transmission, and you can get up to 25 miles per gallon with moderate driving. The EPA estimates are 19 city and 25 highway, and I got 23.5 miles per gallon in combined driving.
The all-wheel-drive is a constant in the VUE, but it is unobtrusive in cornering and performed smoothly.
The rear access is good, and cargo capacity is 30.3 cubic feet, while seating is adequate for five, very comfortable for four. One of the key features that impressed me about the VUE is that the rear windows roll down – all the way. It seems amazing how many manufacturers can’t figure out how to design rear doors that are big enough to house the entire window, leaving rear-seat occupants with a maximum opening of only two-thirds or so. The VUE rear doors are large, making entry and exit very easy, and also taking care of those windows.
Overall length is 181.3 inches, width 71.5, and height 66.5, a wheelbase of 106.6 and 8 inches of ground clearance.
The test vehicle went from a base price of $22,575 to $25,765 with the addition of head curtain airbags, a power sunroof, antilock brakes, the OnStar communication and navigation system, and an upgraded audio with single CD and cassette player from the option list. Standard equipment include the air-conditioning system with filtration, cruise control, electric power steering, 4-wheel independent suspension, dual front airbags, foglights, rear washer-wiper, 16-inch alloy wheels and stainless steel exhaust.
FORD ESCAPE SPORT
The Escape has been criticized for having numerous recalls as it was launched, although I tend to think recalls are not bad, because at least the manufacturer is acknowledging – and fixing – the problem. From its inception, I’ve liked the size and agility of the Escape, which came about when Ford decided it had to enter the compact SUV market and found that its Japanese affiliate, Mazda, was already well along in the design and development phase for one. The result was the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute, less-than-identical twins both built by Ford according to Mazda plans.
Slightly shorter than the VUE, the Escape has a length of 173 inches and wheelbase of 103.1, and stands 70.1 inches wide, but is taller at 69.1 inches. Ground clearance is 7.8 inches.
The Escape comes with a base 4-cylinder, a 2-liter unit with 127 horsepower and 135 foot-pounds of torque. The test vehicle was the newly introduced “XLT Sport†model, with a 3-liter V6 that puts out 201 horsepower and 196 foot-pounds of torque. Maximum towing weight is 3,500 pounds.
So the slightly more compact Escape has an edge in power, although its 4-speed automatic lacks the versatility of the VUEÂ’s 5-speed. Fuel economy is about the same, with EPA estimates ranging from 22 city to 25 highway in the Escape. I got 24 miles per gallon in combined driving.
With the Sport model, you pay a bit more but standard equipment then includes a “No Boundaries†roof rack ready for bikes or kayaks or whatever, plus larger 16-inch alloy wheels, and step bars, which used to be called running boards. The Escape, also, has adequate lower body plastic cladding to help protect the paint from chipping.
You can find Escapes at about $19,000, but when you move up to the Escape XLT Sport , the base is $24,650, and the test vehicle came in at $23,493. That included the options of an audio upgrade to a 6-disc in-dash CD and cassette player, leather seats and side airbags.
The Sport package appears to be an obvious attempt to go after the same market Nissan found for its rugged-look compact Xterra. Inside, the white-faced instruments add to the sporty look, and the leather seats are impressively firm and supportive.
There is a big console with plenty of storage, and two cupholders on the front end. There are three little storage bins in the center dash, and the rear seat occupants can reach two more fold-out cupholders in the console.
Ergonomically, everything works pretty well. I found that when I was shifting some times you could inadvertently hit the wiper switch on the same side of the steering column.
The Escape seems more rugged, if off-road use is intended, and it has a switch on the dash to allow you to go from the automatic setting for full-time all-wheel drive to lock it in 4-by-4 when you need the churning of all-out traction.
For overall use, both vehicles could fill the bill for a family. The EscapeÂ’s weight of 3,133 is lighter than the VueÂ’s 3,491, and the EscapeÂ’s cargo capacity can go from 33 cubic feet to 64.8 with the rear seats folded down. The Escape feels more rugged and the suspension feels a bit firmer, with the Vue maybe leaning toward on-road comfort. Then again, beyond the suspension a lot of the firmer feel of the Escape might be just due to the more supportive bucket seats.
In both cases, however, families can find the versatility and utility of true SUVs without spending twice as much to get a larger vehicle that canÂ’t steer, corner or perform with the efficiency of the Escape or VUE. The battle between Ford and GM has a new chapter now, and itÂ’s a lot like boxing. You can enjoy a heavyweight championship fight, but you can also be tremendously impressed to watch a couple of welterweights go at it.
Volvo introduces XC90 — a Swedish SUV with a conscience
It doesn’t matter whether the new Volvo XC90 is being hurled around a moose found in a roadway or a parking-lot autocross – or being hurtled through the air in an exclusive rollover crash test – the vehicle exhibits manners not usually expected of a car, to say nothing of a sport utility vehicle.
Volvo has always been at the top of the automotive safety game, even before 1959, when it introduced seatbelts. Through 1966, Volvo sedans were built so solidly that it was almost impossible to damage the structure enough to reach the occupants. In 1967, Volvo switched dramatically to a concept of collapsible front and rear sections that would absorb crash energy and offer even greater protection to occupants in a strong inner structure.
Therefore, while Volvo is making a belated entry into the already crowded world of SUVs, why should anybody be surprised that the XC90 just being introduced for 2003 might be the safest vehicle in the world?
Volvo makes no sly suggestions that XC90 owners will go thrashing through the Baja. It was built for on-road use but with capabilities for mild off-roading, aiming at such existing luxury SUVs as the Mercedes M-Class, the BMW X5, the Audi Allroad, the Lexus RX300, the Acura MDX.
While Volvo makes some very good and very sleek wagons, such as the Cross Country, the XC90 is far more than just a wagon bolstered by rugged underpinnings. To qualify as an SUV, a vehicle must meet four of five ground-clearance criteria, and the XC90 comes closer than most to meeting all five, satisfying the departure angle, underside ground clearance, front and rear axle clearance, and the “brake-over†angle stipulations, and only missing the approach angle measurement by one millimeter.
Volvo obviously has met its self-appointed challenge to build a vehicle big enough for three rows of seats for up to seven occupants – although the third row admittedly is for kids of those under 5-foot-5 – while still being compact enough to steer and handle well, get environmentally friendly levels of fuel economy and low emissions, in a vehicle comfortably capable of maneuvering around most accidents, yet uncompromisingly safe if a crash did occur.
At the North American introduction of the vehicle, automotive writers summoned to California got a chance to thoroughly test-drive both the T5 and T6 models of the XC90 and we stayed almost exclusively on streets and winding roadways, which easily proved that Volvo hit about every objective it was seeking. It incorporated the best assets that have made SUVs so popular in the U.S., such as a higher vantage point, and a feeling of security. Volvo also was determined to conquer the liabilities of SUVs, including the tendency to roll over more easily because of the higher center of gravity; the “selfishness†of making occupants safe while creating serious hazards for occupants of other vehicles sharing the road; the inability to have anything approaching handling agility because of the heft of extra weight; and the environmental hassle of larger engines that score poorly in fuel economy and emissions.
The XC90 has a center of gravity only 3.5 inches higher than the very good but very sleek Volvo Cross Country wagon, even though the XC90Â’s seats are 6.5 inches higher. The taller XC90 structure includes a low cross-member up front, designed to fully engage another vehicleÂ’s crumple zone to assure the activation of that vehicleÂ’s safety equipment. In keeping with VolvoÂ’s insistence to coexist with the environment, the XC90 has car-like fuel economy and emission standards, while most SUVs take advantage of the lobbying that has caused the U.S. government to make popular and hugely profitable SUVs exempt from car standards.
The XC90 started with the very good platform from the S60, S70 or S80 sedans, reinforced for the project. It chose in-line engines, both a 5-cylinder and a 6-cylinder, and mounted them crosswise to fit in the very compact front engine compartment. The compartment is so tight that the 5-speed automatic transmission that comes with the 5-cylinder wouldnÂ’t fit with the 6-cylinder engine, which uses a 4-speed automatic instead.
Both engines come from sedans, but have been slightly enlarged and reprofiled to meet the demands for more power at lower revs, because of the XC90Â’s 4,500-pound weight and to achieve towing capability of 5,000 pounds. Both engines are turbocharged, with the low-pressure turbo giving the 2.5-liter 5-cylinder peaks of 208 horsepower and 236 foot-pounds of torque. The torque peak comes in at a mere 1,500 RPMs, bolstered by variable valve timing to keep producing peak power all the way up as the revs build. The 2.9-liter 6-cylinder has twin turbochargers and makes 268 horsepower, with 280 foot-pounds of torque starting at only 1,800 RPMs.
Neither version will win many drag-races. Power and acceleration is fully adequate, and if the engines show some limitations at higher revs, that is a worthy compromise to achieve the XC90’s fuel-efficiency and emissions potential. Volvo anticipates a combined city/highway average of 21 miles per gallon for the T6 and 24 miles per gallon for the T5 – both extremely good for anything resembling an SUV. Also, the T6 meets ultra-low emission vehicle standards (ULEV) for cars, while the T5 meets the more stringent ULEV II standards that won’t be enforced until 2004.
Project director Hans Wikman said the XC90 alleviates the concerns of high emissions and low fuel efficiency, which may have prevented Volvo buyers from considering SUVs until now. Volvo is aiming at 50,000 XC90 sales in its first calendar year, with 65 percent of them in the U.S. Over 3,000 advance orders have been taken, representing half of 2002 production that wonÂ’t start reaching dealerships until November.
The T5 version with front-wheel drive will cost $33,975, rising to $35,725 with all-wheel drive, and options such as leather interior, in-dash six-CD player and the third-row seats can boost it to $40,000. The stronger T6 comes with all the T5 features plus the larger engine, and starts at $40,600, with a loaded version at $42,275. Those prices are not outrageous for an SUV, and they are moderate considering the technology that lets the XC90 meet its objectives.
The all-wheel-drive system is an electronic unit developed with Haldex of Sweden. It monitors steering, acceleration and braking, and normally applies 95 percent of engine power to the front wheels. The system reads any tendency for slippage in the extremely quick reaction time of one-seventh of a wheel turn, transferring increased portions of power to the rear axle before the driver even is aware of it. Unlike many competitors, the XC90 can divert all of its torque to the rear if the front wheels are on an extremely slick surface.
With the front-to-rear proportion thus handled, VolvoÂ’s TRACS traction-control system distributes the power between the left and right sides, giving more power to the side with more traction. It can intervene when necessary to brake one wheel in order to increase the relative power going to the wheel on the other side with better traction. Together, the joint systems send optimum power to whichever of the four wheels has the best traction.
Stopping and steering are also combinations of high-tech systems. Under heavy braking, the all-wheel-drive and traction systems are deactivated to allow the antilock brake system to assume full command. When an emergency steering situation occurs, roll stability control (RSC), which uses gyroscopic sensors to monitor the carÂ’s roll speed and roll angle, instantly calculates when the angle approaches critical rollover risk. At that instant, the RSC activates a dynamic stability and traction control system (DSTC), which counteracts any tendency to skid by controlling power and/or applying brakes to one or more wheels to limit the effect of any spinning or skidding wheel.
Extreme circumstances still can cause the worst to occur, so the XC90 is built to take an incredible beating. The occupant compartment is built with reinforced parts of the roof and occupant cage made out of Boron steel, which is four or five times stronger than the steel normally used in vehicles. Volvo sources claim that if the Boron steel bars were bent, they couldnÂ’t even be straightened out. The front and rear sections still will absorb energy from a crash.
Hans-Olov Olsson, the president and CEO of Volvo, said: “I can assure you, Volvo will remain one of the safest car companies, because safety is one of our core values. When we engineer and design cars, we have a long history of taking an active role in safety. Ever since we introduced seatbelts in 1959, you can find a little bit of Volvo in all cars, and with every new Volvo since then, we have the ambition to have new safety measures. With the launch of the new XC90, we feel we have definitely rewritten the rule book when it comes to safety.Ââ€
I had the opportunity to see some pretty convincing evidence at VolvoÂ’s crash-testing facility in Gothenburg, Sweden. Along with equipment to test head-on, front-corner-to-front-corner, side and rear impacts, a unique wing of the facility has a long hallway with a catapult mounted to a long track. It grips a vehicle at a sideways angle, speeds down the long hallway, and flips the vehicle through the air onto an outside concrete landing patch. I watched an XC90 launched on one test, and it flew through the air, landing on its roof and rolling 4.5 times. The vehicle was righted, and although it was bent up a bit, all four doors still opened and closed, front, side and side-curtain airbags were properly deployed, and the dummies inside were held firmly in place in the seats by the belt pretensioners.
Volvo officials said they havenÂ’t tried competing vehicles on the rollover tests because they donÂ’t want to show up other companies, just make highway travel safer.
More recently, I got a chance to drive both models of the XC90, first on the steep hills of San Francisco, where the temperature in mid-August was 70 in the daytime and 50 at night, before we ventured two hours inland, through some winding mountain roads to Sedona and wine country, where the outside temperature was 107 degrees. It was hard to imagine such a change, because, of course, the air-filtration, air-conditioning system handled it all in stride. In all conditions, city and country, the XC90 never failed to exhibit the feedback that the driver is in complete control of a vehicle that had accomplished every aspect of handling, performance, comfort and security.
It was at the autocross course back at oceanside in San Francisco where the huge stuffed moose made its appearance, positioned as it might be after wandering into a road near Gothenburg – or the Northwoods of Minnesota or Wisconsin – if not California. Cones were aligned to guide drivers through a swerve to the left and back to the right, to show the XC90’s emergency handling capabilities. I was frustrated when I knocked over a cone at each chicane, partly because the cone alignment was barely wider than the vehicle, but mostly because after I had run the XC90 through at the suggested 30 miles per hour, I was trying to make it at 43 mph.
At least I missed the moose.
Tiburon meets all sports car requirements — except high price
All right, whatÂ’s going on here with Hyundai? The Korean automaker has been making vehicles for a lot of years now, and most of them were copies of other companiesÂ’ established cars. Good copies, true, but copies, nonetheless.
A few months ago, I got a chance to test drive the 2001 Hyundai Santa Fe, and as compact sport-utility vehicles go, it has all the right equipment – a truly impressive vehicle at a low-$20,000 bargain price. Then I drove the 2001 XG350, a luxury sedan that was loaded to the door-sills with great equipment, also at a mid-$20,000 bargain price.
Still, I wasn’t prepared for what has come my way now that it’s time for the 2003 models to start rolling out. Several times, I saw these sleek, racy sports cars, did a double-take, and wondered what it could be, looking a lot like the most recent Toyota Supra – high praise, indeed.
It turns out it was a Hyundai Tiburon GT. The Tiburon came out a few years ago and it was a disappointment, to me. It tried to look sleek, but it was weird, full of eccentric bulges and non-classy touches, such as plastic interior trim painted silver with the hope of looking like brushed aluminum. But the new Tiburon came with me already impressed at its looks. But that still didnÂ’t prepare me for the whole package.
Consider that it starts out with a 2.7-liter V6, with dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, turning out 181 horsepower, and wearing a 6,500-RPM red line on its tachometer. It also had a 6-speed manual transmission, dual exhausts, drilled silver aluminum pedals, four-wheel disc brakes, neat 17-inch alloy wheels mounted with Michelin high-performance tires, sport-tuned suspension, a big spoiler up on that sleek rear decklid, leather seats, power windows and locks, heated outside mirrors, keyless entry, six-speaker audio with CD and tape players along with the radio, and, of course, cruise, air, adjustable steering column, antilock brakes, a moonroof, dual front and side airbags, intermittent wipers, and a 50-50 fold-down rear seatback to enhance storage room from under the rear hatch, leather seats.
The six-speed, aluminum pedals, spoiler, moonroof and antilock brakes are all from the option list, on what’s called “UltraSport Package 3,†listing for $1,998, but all the other features are standard.
All of that lists for $20,492, for the GT, which is upgraded from the base model that starts at about $16,000 with a four-cylinder engine.
It seems impossible that any car could have all that equipment and still cost under $30,000. The Tiburon does it, does it with style, and comes in way under $30,000. On top of that price, Hyundai has its potent 10-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty, and the accompanying 5-year, 60,000-mile warranty on everything else.
With fierce competition in the sports car niche these days, having a sticker of $20,000 is a huge reason the Tiburon should be examined by anyone looking for a sports car, or even a sporty coupe. The Tiburon has surprisingly adequate rear-seat room, in its 2-plus-2 configuration, and can carry four occupants as easily as most compact coupes, even while also fulfilling the looks and panache of an all-out sports car.
While the second Tiburon was vastly improved over the first venture, the new one takes the styling to a new and major-league level. The low, horizontal grille opening sits above the color-keyed bumper, and below that are full-width slats, flanked by integrated foglights. The big, clear-lens covering over the headlights allows the small beams and turn signal lights to be visible, and the taillights also have a fully integrated and classy styling.
The alloy wheels are also classy but understated, enhancing the image of the car without overpowering it. They are large, at 17 inches, and the Michelin Pilot tires mean business, at least on dry pavement. From the driverÂ’s seat, the steering wheel is comfortably thick, and the gauges are nicely packaged, outlined with silver rings. Large, round heat-air vents are easy to adjust high on the dash, with controls down below the audio package.
Impressive as it all is, however, the Tiburon is not perfect, even if all the ingredients are there for a perfect bargain. While Korean companies have been accused of not innovating but merely copying, Hyundai gets full credit for putting together all those ingredients. Now all the company needs is to borrow, say, a Honda engineer or a race-car set-up man, and have him spend about a week driving and suggestion refinements.
For example, the engine puts out 181 horsepower and revs to that 6,500-RPM redline with strong, dual-overhead-cam verve, but power must be coordinated with handling to be impressing. Maybe the six-speed transmission could use better gearing, or maybe the power steering is over-boosted, or perhaps itÂ’s the suspension, but itÂ’s a minor quibble that refinement could solve.
To achieve flat-attitude cornering, sporty-car used to be made with springs, shocks and stabilizer bars used to stiffen up the cornering capabilities of comparatively flexible chassis frames. Adding big, wide tires helped more, and then going to larger aspect-ratio wheels helped even more. However, modern computer design and chassis sophistication allows the bodies to start out so stiff and firm that engineers can go the other way, using the shock damping and steering to make the handling more compliant. Coordinating it all takes great expertise in the chassis-tuning department.
The Tiburon GT has a stiff chassis, and Hyundai deserves full praise for adding stiff suspension components, big alloy wheels and performance tires. Altogether, though, they mean that the Tiburon GT stays firm enough, but you feel like youÂ’re being slapped upside the head by each bump or even tar-strip you cross. Maybe thatÂ’s the wheel-tire-suspension combination, or maybe itÂ’s a lack of sound-deadening insulation, but it should be an easy fix. Same with the audio system, which has six speakers and a subwoofer, but the biggest speakers are down low in the doors, and much of the subtle sounds get lost amid other highway road noises, unless, presumably, you could ride with your head on the floor.
The passenger-seat access to the rear seat is another nuisance. The front buckets can be positioned to leave quite adequate rear legroom, but getting it there without eliciting howls from a rear passenger is a trick we didnÂ’t quite solve during a trip I made with two other occupants. It was handy to flip the passenger seat backrest forward and have the whole seat slide forward to allow easy entry to the rear. But try to put the backrest back in place and it stops bolt upright instead. Worse, when the whole seat slides back for the front occupantÂ’s entry, it refuses to lock in place until itÂ’s all the way back, after which it can be adjusted to slide forward and make adequate rear legroom.
But the process means the front passenger must find the way to slide the seat back far enough to lock in, without crushing the rear passengerÂ’s legs in the process, before it can slide forward to make room. Most times the front passenger doesnÂ’t get the seat back far enough, then climbs in, and then the seat slides back the rest of the way, catching the rear passenger by surprise.
Again, it should be quite elementary to engineer the seat so that its backrest returns to the angle it was at, while the seatÂ’s base could catch and lock along the way, to be adjusted from front-to-rear instead of only full-rear-to-front.
Those all might come under the heading of nitpicks, because they all are small things that could easily be rectified through refinement. The big thing is to get all the elements into one package, and the new Tiburon GT does that in style.
Durango refinements make it easy to live with, and to enter
The Dodge Durango had some good ideas when it was first introduced, in the midst of what has become a jungle of 80-some Sport-Utility Vehicles now on the market. And with time, and revisions, the Durango has retained those good ideas and come up with a few more.
While there are huge SUVs and tiny SUVs, and crossover vehicles and all manner of cars and trucks portraying SUVs, the Durango pretty much announces that what you see is what you get. Introduced delicately by a company that owns Jeep, and knows Jeep wants to be the flagship SUV, the Durango is a big, bold and sporty body mounted on a truck platform.
It has three rows of seats, meaning it can seat two in the front buckets, three in the middle row (or two with a fold-down backrest making a console-like separation), and two or three in the rearmost seat, depending on how small and/or compatible they are.
When I got the chance recently to test-drive a 2002 Durango, it was the loaded SLT model, equipped with just about everything possible, from leather seats to a potent 8-speaker audio system, and including a trailer towing package, side-curtain airbags, a security system, skid plates to protect the fuel tank, 4×4 transfer case and front suspension from any off-road encounters, and body-color-keyed running boards. There also was the outlet in place for rear-seat video.
Naturally, when fully loaded, the price goes up, up and away. The base price for the SLT version of the Durango is $31,540, and as-tested, my Atlantic Blue Pearl Durango listed for $37,135.
In size, the Durango fits in nicely for Dodge, which doesnÂ’t have the vast variety of SUVs outfits like Ford, General Motors or Toyota can boast. At 193.5 inches in length, the Durango is two inches longer than the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, four inches longer than the Ford Explorer, but more than five inches shorter than the Chevrolet Tahoe and six inches shorter than a Ford Expedition.
The room, comfort, full instrumentation and driveability of the Durango make it enjoyable, truck or not in this era of increasingly car-based SUVs. The test Durango had ChryslerÂ’s 4.7-liter V8, an overhead-camshaft engine turning out 235 horsepower and 295 foot-pounds of torque, while the larger 5.9-liter, without the overhead cams, has only 10 more horses and 40 more foot-pounds. While that might give a small boost to the towing capabilities, the 4.7 can counter by utilizing a 5-speed automatic transmission rather than a 4-speed, for easier highway cruising. I got 16.3 miles per gallon in combined city-freeway driving, getting almost 400 miles off a tankful, while the EPA estimate suggests 13 city, 17 highway.
The Durango has a switch to let you choose from all-wheel drive to lock in four-wheel drive either high or low for serious off-roading, the kind the skid plates might anticipate.
Among the neat features of the Durango is that the third row of seats is not just for an ad campaign, but is legitimately useful for adults to ride in. It is angled just enough for forward visibility, but the best part of it is that the second-row buckets are the best-designed IÂ’ve seen for allowing easy access to the back row. There is a familiar little handle on the lower joint of the backrest and cushion, and when you lift it, the spring-loaded backrest folds down flat onto the cushion. But if you simply keep your finger on the same handle and lift a bit more, the whole seat tumbled forward, completing a two-stage move that gives you an enormous opening for entry to the back seat.
Also, with all three rows of seats in place, there is still a generous amount of storage space behind the rear seat, although cargo capacity can be expanded from 18.8 to 51.3 to 88 cubic feet by folding the third row, or the second and third rows, down flat. The folding seats, like the foglights, 16×8 inche aluminum wheels, 25-gallon poylethylene fuel tank, roof rack and all-terrain tires with full-size spare, are standard on the SLT Durango.
Power outlets front and rear and inside the console are handy, and along with one cupholder in the console, there are two just ahead of the console that have arms that tighten to grasp any size cup. Front and rear heat-ventilation controls are also nice standard features.
At $37,135, the price is steep for the loaded Durango, although the sticker shouldnÂ’t surprise those who have shopped for any of the fully-equipped midsize or larger SUVs these days. There are bigger SUVs, smaller ones, fancier ones costlier ones and cheaper ones, but the Durango motors on as a pretty comprehensive middle-of-the-road vehicle. Or, when equipped like the test vehicle, maybe that should be middle-of-the-off-road.
New Audi A4 more similar but still different from upscale A6
A good friend of mine is looking for an upscale sedan, which would be driven mostly by his wife, he said. He wants something safe, secure and dependable no matter what the weather. While running off a list of suggestions, I mentioned the Audi A6, but I hastily added that the new A4 is now close enough that if it has sufficient room, he could save some money by going A4.
The full-size A6 and the more compact A4 are AudiÂ’s bread-and-butter sellers, located below AudiÂ’s top-of-the-line luxury A8, and with the TT and various sporty wagons as the factory sports car diversion. The difference in size of the A6 and A4 always has been substantial, with both cars offering plenty of room in the front buckets, while the A6 offers spacious comfort in the rear seat and the trunk.
With both cars offering standard front-wheel drive and optional quattro – Audi’s patented “lower-case q†all-wheel-drive system – they have always been more than just competitive in Minnesota, where we have winters, against rear-drive Mercedes and BMW models. So for 2002, the all-new A4 is lengthened 2.3 inches overall, and 1.3 inches in wheelbase, while also growing 1.3 inches in width and a half-inch in height. The revised chassis has been made 45 percent stiffer.
The difference in interior room seems slight, just under a half-inch more front and rear headroom and about one inch of rear legroom, and only about .3 cubic feet of trunk space. But itÂ’s packaged so much better that it seems much roomier in all dimensions. What struck me most was the new sculpturing of the rear end of the A4, which has a pleasing convex look to the tail instead of the pleasing but creased rear of its predecessor. In appearance, because of the redesigned rear end, the new A4 looks a lot more like the current A6 than like the old A4.
From a sales standpoint, I thought that people would buy the A4 unless they absolutely needed more room in the back seat and trunk, in which case they could move up a few thousand dollars and get the A6. The only valid criticism of the A4 since it was introduced as a 1995 model has been its tight rear seat, and limited trunk space. But if the new A4 improved in those areas, wouldnÂ’t it bump right up against the more expensive A6?
I got my answer by cross-referencing test drives in an A4 and an A6, almost identically equipped.
Obviously, Audi doesn’t mind if both cars become closer in capabilities. The base price of the A4 is $24,900, while the least-expensive A6 is $35,400 – more than $10,000. However, the base A6 comes with the 3.0 engine, which is the upgrade engine in the A4. By the time you put the 3.0 into the A4, and put the quattro system in both cars and give them similar enhancements from the option list, their price stickers can get very close indeed.
The test A4 with heated leather seats, special denim blue pearl effect paint, the sport package suspension, 6-speed manual shifter, Bose premium sound system, glass sunroof and Xenon headlights, ran its price up to $38,410. The test A6, with luxury leather and sunroof, Bose, Xenon lights, and walnut wood trim, reached $42,755 – for a difference of only a tad more than $3,000.
The A6 comes with a choice of three engines, including the 4.2-liter V8 out of the A8, the 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged V6, or AudiÂ’s all-new 3.0 aluminum V6, which replaces the tried and true 2.8 V6. The A4, meanwhile, comes with either the highly efficient 1.8-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder, or the same 3.0 V6. By chance, both test cars came with 3.0-liter V6 engines. The A6 had AudiÂ’s 5-speed automatic with a Tiptronic clutchless auto-shifter, while the A4 had a six-speed manual.
Both also came with quattro, which is unlike normal four-wheel drive or even all-wheel drive systems. AudiÂ’s quattro can shift up to 67 percent of its torque from front to rear, and can shift half of that power from side to side in case only one wheel tends to spin. It was designed with high-performance in mind, and the fact that it just happens to be sensational in snowbelt winter conditions is just a pleasant side effect.
The new 3.0 V6 obtainable in both cars is 44 pounds lighter than the 2.8 engine it replaces. The weight was saved by being all-aluminum, and some slick and patented design work from Cosworth Engineering, the legendary British race shop that now is a subsidiary of Audi. The engine has five valves per cylinder, three intake and two exhaust, and variable intake and exhaust valve timing. The engine produces 220 horsepower at 6,300 RPMs, and while its torque peak is 221 foot-pounds at 3,200 RPMs, and 90 percent of that torque is present from 2,000 revs on up.
In size, the A4 is 179 inches long; the A6 192 (13 inches greater). In wheelbase, the A4 is 104.3 inches; the A6 108.6 (4.3 inches greater). In width, the A4 is 69.5 inches (not counting mirrors); the A6 71.3 (not quite 2 inches greater). In height, the A4 is 56.2 inches; the A6 57.1 (not quite 1 inch). And in weight, the A4 quattro is 3,627 pounds, and the A6 3,770 (103 pounds greater). The A6 enjoys an inch more front headroom, a half-inch more rear headroom, an inch more front shoulder room and more than 2 inches rear shoulder room, and while the two cars have identical front legroom, the A6 has over 3 inches greater rear legroom, and more than 3 cubic feet of luggage space. The A4 has a completely new seat design, with a longer cushion, higher bolstering, 2 inches more fore and aft movement, and a 4-inch opening under the front buckets, which allows greatly increased footroom for folks in the back.
The compact exterior and lighter weight equates to a difference in performance. The A4 with the 6-speed stick ran 0-60 in 6.9 seconds, almost a full-second under the same car’s factory time with an automatic; the A6 with the 5-speed automatic took 7.9 seconds to get to 60 – exactly 1 second more than the A4 stick, and the A6 doesn’t come with a stick.
The A4 also has an edge in agility, with 17-inch wheels and sticky tires in the sport package, and improved suspension stiffness with standard settings equal to what Audi used to use in its sports suspension. A sophisticated four-link front suspension design, taken from the expensive A8 and made out of high-strength aluminum, aids the A4 steering and handlng.
Safety enhancements range from Sideguard head-protection airbags to supplement frontal and side airbags to protect against angular impacts, to its electronic stabilization program. The “ESP†initials are familiar because Audi contracted with Mercedes to borrow the technology, which intervenes to regain control when it senses a skid. Audi adds its BrakeAssist concept, which gives a computer-read on how hard you step on the brake, going immediately to maximum brake pressure to shorten stopping distance if it senses a panic stop situation.
All of those enhancements on the new A4 are impressive, indeed. Most, however, already are standard on the A6, and the A6 adds a few items, such as double door seals for added safety, 30-percent thicker glass for reduced exterior noise intrusion, other styling touches, and, of course, the added luxury that a foot longer car can provide, adding some substance to the A6 for its modest increase in price.
Much as I like the A4, and while I admit I went into the comparison figuring the more compact A4 would be preferable to the A6 with their prices so closeÂ…now IÂ’m not so sure.
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