Focus is on driving — and entering — ’05 ZX4 ST model
SAINT PAUL, MN. — What could be better than gazing at a bright red, all-American, 2005 Ford Focus ZX4 on Fourth of July week? About the only thing that would be better than looking at the new Focus is to drive it. Curiously enough, I was so impressed driving it that I wound up outside, looking at it.
The ZX4 ST model requires a lot of letters, but it’s hot enough as an upgrade to the basic Focus that the red-hot Focus SVT has been discontinued. That saddened me, when I heard the news, but only until I got to drive the new ZX4. The new 2.3-liter four-cylinder is so strong that you have to think back to how impressively quick the outgoing Focus SVT was, and you realize that this “non-SVT†might be every bit as quick.
After being impressed for several days, I was driving the Focus ZX4 past Maplewood Imports in suburban St. Paul, and I stopped in to see if, by chance, any of the 2005 Mercedes models had arrived yet. My old friend and salesman George Andeweg said that some had shown up, and he volunteered to take me for a short drive in the all-new E-Class CDI turbo-diesel, letting me drive it back. Afterward, I motioned over to the bright red little Focus and told George that this was more than just a garden-variety Focus, because of its new engine.
George asked for a ride, so I agreed, and to make sure he was properly impressed, I suggested he drive it up the highway and back. As we got in, by chance, it started to rain, so we closed the sunroof and the windows. George ran it gingerly up through the five-speed gears for a couple of blocks, and as we came back, he was smiling at how impressive the engine was. He pulled up at the main entrance to his Mercedes dealership, and said, since it was still raining and he knew I had to leave, he was going to hustle inside. So he left the motor running, hopped out, and ran inside.
I climbed out of the passenger seat, walked around the carÂ…and found, to my surprise, that the driverÂ’s door was locked. That George; how could he have even hit the power-lock switch as he got out? Of course, he hadn’t, but I wasn’t sure of that as I chuckled, walking back around the car to the passenger side, only to find out that the passenger-side door was also locked! All four doors and the trunklid all were steadfastly locked, and they had apparently locked themselves, as the 2.3-liter engine kept humming merrily along at idle.
It was of small consolation that the rain stopped right about then, because there I was, standing there where I could do nothing but admire the bright, red looks of the new Ford Focus ZX4, while being totally helpless about getting back inside it. I summoned George, and he was very apologetic, but of course, it had nothing to do with anything he had done. And a lot to do with either an electrical malfunction of the power-lock gizmo, or else some ill-advised scheme of an over-zealous feature designer who went one step too far down the road of sophistication.
Two or three Mercedes service guys, along with George and I, struggled to work a “slim jim†and a coat hanger into the upper corner of the doors on both sides. After a half-hour, one fellow managed to hook the hanger around the inside passenger door handle and unlatched it. What a relief. George cracked the passenger side window about four inches and, as he slammed the door, I yelled: “Wait! DonÂ’t close it!Ââ€
He laughed, but said it wouldnÂ’t lock this time, and besides he had cracked the window. Then he tried it, and, amazingly, the Focus had again locked itself. Luckily he could reach his arm in and unlock it this time. But I was left with the realization that technology has clearly gone too far. The fancy remote devices on the key fob are great, and power locks are wonderful, but who ever heard of doors that would lock themselves?
I imagined a scenario, during one of our frequent late-night trips between the Twin Cities and Duluth, when I might suggest to my wife, Joan, that I was a little sleepy, so maybe she should drive for a while. In those cases, she complies, I pull over on the freeway shoulder when no traffic is approaching, put the car in neutral with the emergency brake on, or in park, then we jump out, circle the still-idling car, and take off. Almost like a pit stop. It would truly be the pits, however, if we did that somewhere between Sandstone and Moose Lake and found that both of us were locked out. Being left standing on the freeway shoulder in the middle of nowhere at 1 a.m., with no way to get into the still-running car, is not a pleasant scenario, although being stuck anywhere in that condition isnÂ’t very appealing.
Because Fourth of July weekend was fast-approaching, I couldnÂ’t locate anybody in FordÂ’s Chicago or Detroit offices for a potentially logical explanation, which means I was left without any explanation, logical or not.
I recently had a Volkswagen Passat for a test drive, and while my wife and I were making several stuff-carrying trips, she went inside with the key. With my arms full, I wasnÂ’t sure she was going to make a return trip for the last couple of items, so I tried to lock the doors, just in case. I pushed the lock switch and the doors clicked to lock, but when I closed the door, it unlocked. It would be impossible to lock that car WITHOUT the key. Maybe thatÂ’s what Ford intended, but they just got it backwards. When I finally reached the always-helpful Tom Larson in Ford’s Chicago regional office, he was surprised to hear my tale and said he’d try to find out if any such design was in place, but strongly suspected a malfunction.
I donÂ’t like locks that lock you inside a car, for whatever security reasons, without you pushing some button to order it. But I find it incomprehensible that any car would lock itself automatically, with nobody inside and the car running, with the key, obviously, still inside.
The whole incident was off-putting, which is too bad. It makes for a good column, but the Focus ZX4 ST deserves a column-full of accolades. Ford’s arrangement with Mazda is paying rich dividends, and the ZX4 is just one of those. The previous Focus engine was a 2-liter “Zetec†four-cylinder, which was adequate, and the Special Vehicle Team (SVT) gang reworked to deliver 170 horsepower and 145 foot-pounds of torque – far more than adequate in the SVT Focus. As usual, the SVT treatment also doctored up the suspension and shocks to make that model handle with fabulous sportiness.
For 2005, Ford takes Mazda’s slick, new 2.3-liter four-cylinder – the base engine in the Mazda6 and the available engine in the new Mazda3 and the Ford Escape – and stuffs it into the Focus. The Mazda engine is a dual-overhead-cam, world-class beauty, with chain-driven cams and four valves per cylinder. It has 151 horsepower, which seems light next to the SVT Focus’s 170, but it adds a robust 154 foot-pounds of torque, topping the SVT’s 145. The bottom line is the new Focus ZX4 four-door runs 0-60 within one-tenth of a second of the SVT in most car-magazine tests.
In addition, the new Focus ZX4 gets the SVTÂ’s firm-set shock absorbers, and even though the new car is softer sprung, the performance is decidedly improved over the current Focus, and just a tad more comfortable for everyday driving than the uncompromisingly stiff Focus SVT. The ST upgrade to the ZX4 adds some neat sporty trim to the interior, and even fully loaded with every possible option, the price stays around $18,000.
Alloy wheels and a five-speed work smoothly, and the Mazda heritage dovetails well with the 2,816-pound Focus. The 2.3-liter engine not only has potent, free-revving power, but it also burns clean. Ford officials claim the new engine is twice as clean as the ULEV (ultra low emission vehicle) standards call for, and it burns one-third cleaner than the 2004 Focus.
Externally, the new Focus has a revised nose, more smoothly coordinated in the same manner that the new Ford 500 sedan will be when it is introduced in a couple of months. Altogether, the Focus remains FordÂ’s economy-car challenger, and in base form it measures up well. In ZX4 form, with the 2.3-liter upgrade, it more than measures up against most imports. And in full-boat, ZX4 ST gear, itÂ’ll make you eager to climb inside and drive the heck out of it.
If, that is, it lets you get inside to drive.
V10 diesel boosts Touareg beyond normal SUVs
It may be difficult to think about diesels as being technically advanced, but just wait. In about a year, weÂ’re going to see a whole fleet of high-tech, diesel-powered cars descending on the United States, and we will embrace them and seek them out in large quantities.
Welcome to the rest of the world, U.S. of A.
If you want a glimpse of future potential as well as current performance, take a test-drive in a Volkswagen Touareg with a V10 turbo-diesel. The Volkswagen Passat, Jetta, Golf or New Beetle with the four-cylinder turbo-diesel set new standards of economy, durability and performance, and the Touareg, with its new V10, goes to extremes that seem impossible to highway denizens in this country.
I recently wrote about the Jetta TDI, which delivers 54 miles per gallon on the EPA’s highway driving cycle, ahead of the hybrid Toyota Prius and second only to the Honda Insight hybrid among all vehicles available in the U.S. Subsequently, I test-drove the larger Volkswagen Passat GLS wagon with the 2.0-liter turbo-diesel, which was impressive. Now comes the Touareg, which is good with the 2.3-liter V6, better with the Audi A8-based 4.2-liter V8 – and mind-blowing with its optional new 5-liter V10 turbo-diesel.
The Passat wagon has an easily attainable 38-mpg highway EPA figure, with 134 horsepower and 247 foot-pounds of torque, peaking at 1,900 RPMs. As a solid and substantial station wagon, the relatively small diesel propels the Passat from 0-60 in about 10 seconds, and can easily run right up beyond any legal speed limits. On a deserted stretch of level rural freeway, I did computer checks that showed 51 mpg at 70 mph; 42 mpg at 75 mph; and 39 mpg at a brief stretch of 80 mph. For a tankful, I got 38.2 miles per gallon on a freeway trip.
What makes it a prize is that the Passat wagon costs $24,000, only about $200 more than the normal gas-engine version.
Impressive as the Passat is, those hungry for more power might imagine the Touareg. With its sturdy SUV build, all-wheel drive, exceptional interior amenities for comfort, the ability to turn a switch and raise the chassis five inches from cruising lowness to off-road height, VW now adds its new 5-liter V10 turbodiesel. The result is almost incomprehensible.
The V10 has 310 horsepower, and 553 foot-pounds of torque, which is amazing. More amazing, the torque peaks at only 2,000 RPMs, which means that barely above idle, you are launching at full torque. In real-world performance, the 5,825-pound Touareg surges from 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. Top speed is electronically limited to 130 mph, plenty for an SUV. Speed, of course, should not be a priority in a rugged SUV, but if you want to tow something: The TDI Touareg has a tow capability of 7,700 pounds. Its EPA estimates are for 23 mpg on the highway; I got 26.
VolkswagenÂ’s diesel technology has developed an advanced electronic fuel-injection system with Bosch that puts separate unit injectors on each cylinder, better atomizing the fuel and electronically metering the dose going into the combustion chamber at the incredible pressure of 29,733 pounds per square inch. Twin turbochargers have electrically actuated turbine blades, furthering the precision of the V10 beyond the capability of common-rail injection systems.
The Touareg’s V10 is like two five-cylinder engines joined, joined mechanically at the crankshaft but with separate intake and exhaust systems. All the pumps, alternator and other hardware bits are nestled in the “V†under a slick, crackled alloy intake manifold. Volkswagen’s industry-leading technology is costly, with the V10 Touareg TDI priced at $57,800. Nobody, however, will question whether it’s worth it.
As Volkswagen has proven, its dieselsÂ’ capability for everyday work is as blue-collar as their technology is exotic. We have to overcome our feeling that diesels donÂ’t seem at all exotic when you are stuck in traffic, inhaling second-hand soot from that smoke-spewing diesel truck or bus directly ahead of you. ThatÂ’s why in the U.S. we dismissed them after a brief fling 30 years ago or so. Who wants a car that is loud, clattering, smelly, smoky, and slow, besides?
The VWs, regardless of which diesel engine you try, donÂ’t have the smell, sound and rudeness associated with diesels. The scenario will only get better. Volkswagen is the only company that offers diesel cars in the U.S. for 2004, although several more are about to be introduced this fall as 2005s, and a virtual battalion of other top diesels are awaiting 2006, when U.S. diesel fuel regulations will greatly reduce sulfur content — from over 320 parts per million sulfur to 15 ppm. In Europe, diesel fuel is limited to 12 ppm.
Meanwhile, since driving all three VW diesels, IÂ’ve learned about diesels, particularly a few things I previously misunderstood. For example, all diesels are four-stroke. Because of the sound, and the fact diesels accomplish so much on one stroke, I thought some might be two-strokes. Not true. Like gas engines, diesels are four-stroke, drawing air in on one downstroke of the piston, compressing it on the return, firing back down upon ignition, and returning up to expel exhaust.
Diesels donÂ’t use spark plugs or conventional throttle action, and while gas engines use the upper portion of the cylinder as a combustion chamber, diesels have a combustion chamber hollowed into the top of each piston. Diesels eliminate the need for a spark-plug-induced explosion of a gas/air mix by using extraordinarily high compression to cause the air molecules to heat up enough to ignite as soon as a metered dose of diesel fuel is injected.
For a thorough explanation of the differences between gas and diesel engines, I went to the top, and contacted Volkswagen project leader Stefan Krebsfanger.
“Most gas engines breathe and compress a homogeneous fuel/air mixture up to around a 10:1 ratio, which is ignited by the spark plug,†Krebsfanger explained. “So engine power is governed by the throttle, which regulates the amount of fuel/air mixture that the cylinders inhale.
“Diesel engines breathe and compress fresh air. Diesel fuel is injected into the compressed air in the combustion chamber and self-ignites due to the high compression pressures – a ratio of around 19:1. Engine power is governed by the amount of diesel fuel which is injected into the fresh compressed air in the combustion chamber. Since there is no throttle, the fresh air amount which the cylinders inhale is always about the same.Ââ€
Diesel fuel is capable of producing far more energy than gasoline, but the problem, over the years, has been that foul sootiness and pollution. But not because of diesel technology. Our laws have allowed fuel refiners to sell greasy, black, sooty, smelly stuff of over 320 parts per million sulfur, so the sooty, smelly, foul exhaust is more attributable to the fuel than to the diesel process. The cleaner, more refined European diesel fuel has allowed companies like Volkswagen, Renault, Mercedes, Volvo, BMW and others to develop high-tech diesel technology. In Japan, Toyota, Nissan (through its connection with Renault), and Honda have developed fantastic new diesel engines. They just donÂ’t send them to the U.S., because of our fuel, and because of our emission laws.
But in 2006, when the laws drop the sulfur content, those high-tech diesels will undoubtedly meet or beat the emission rules. And, as Volkswagen’s current cars prove, diesels already have conquered our most optimistic performance and economy wishes.
(John Gilbert writes weekly auto reviews and can be reached at cars@jwgilbert.com.)
Isuzu Ascender rises above rivals and peers alike
The Isuzu Ascender is a well-proportioned, nicely sized and beautiful little sport-utility vehicle. With its dark “Nordic blue metallic†paint, the Ascender avoids the slab-sided sameness of some rival SUVs, although we first must concede that it is pretty near identical to some others.
Stylishly set off by 6-spoke silver alloy wheels, and a wide swath of ding-absorbing side molding strips, the Ascender does ascend – climbing steep hills and virtually anywhere else with a big in-line 6-cylinder engine, which coordinates with dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder and variable valve timing to generate 275 horsepower and 275 foot-pounds of torque. There is utility-based room inside, even though the optional leather seats are rich enough to convince you that “utility†might mean hauling another couple to the country club.
I must, however, take issue with the name. In a time when many manufacturers are going for totally confusing letter combinations instead of actual names, we probably shouldnÂ’t complain. But “Ascender†sounds good, as long as you conjure up the picture of zipping up and over a steep hillside. It could become less impressive if, at some time, the owner should get bumped in the rear end. An entirely different image would be conjured up for the folks in the car behind you, when, noting the dented rear end, they might put a slightly adjusted inflection on the chrome nametag – “Asc-ender.Ââ€
WhatÂ’s in a name, anyway? Well, it’s the only way to tell the players from the other players, in some cases. The Ascender’s attractive and contemporary silhouette, with high-arching wheel openings and the hint of a rise where the body passes the rear axle, has harmonizing angles from the way the grille angles back at the front to how the hatch tapers toward the roof. At a glance, it might remind you of something else: maybe the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, or the GMC Envoy, or a hint of the new Buick Ranier, or maybe even the new Saab 9-7.
If you were to guess the closest resemblance, you would be right, of course, if you picked “all of the above.Ââ€
The TrailBlazer was originally Chevrolet’s attempt to create a downsized version of the Blazer utility truck, before SUVs acquired “sport†as a first name. It has evolved into a pretty tidy truck, after being renamed from S-10 Blazer to TrailBlazer a few years ago. Then it started proliferating, quite naturally spinning off into the GMC version, and now Buick has found the highway to profit is congested with trucks. And the same TrailBlazer platform for those three will wear a Saab logo as the 9-7.
Isuzu, meanwhile, has been a loyal trooper, so to speak, for General Motors. While building an original Japanese off-roadable truck in the Trooper, Isuzu always was a Japanese truck company first and foremost. Isuzu used to make a little pickup for Chevy, and it made the Spectrum compact sedan for GM as well. But IsuzuÂ’s pickups were best known for sturdy performance and endless durability. The big Trooper later was augmented by the midsize Rodeo. IsuzuÂ’s fortunes have waned recently, so for 2004 became time to build a new model to replace the venerable Trooper and its expansive, square-cornered shape, GM came to its affiliateÂ’s rescue with the Ascender, which officially replaces the Trooper.
Isuzu couldnÂ’t have done much better. I think the TrailBlazer is one of the best vehicles in the entire Chevrolet/GMC array, particularly because it became the vehicle to carry GMÂ’s first attempt at putting a high-tech (dual-overhead-cam) engine into a truck. Amid all the various car-magazine attempts to justify less-costly pushrod engines, there is no question that the future of gasoline internal combustion engines is with overhead-cam design. Except, of course, for those who would rather use a typewriter than a computer word processor, or listen to a 78-RPM record instead of a compact disc. So the Ascender gets the DOHC in-line 6 in the deal, as well.
Inside the Ascender, the steering wheel and instrument panel are nicely laid out, as is the center stack with its audio and heat-air controls. Again, if you find the Ascender’s switchgear and controls vaguely familiar, then you, too, have been inside a TrailBlazer in the last couple years. The seats are comfortable, although I’d like more lumbar support adjustment. The plastic “woodgrain†trim is OK, if not very realistic looking. If you need to haul people more than stuff, you can get a third-row seat. Dual zone climate control, intermittent wipers and rear wiper-washer-defogger are nice touches.
I found the steering over-boosted a bit, and it took a few drives before I got comfortable with the lightweight steering that made the Ascender eager to wander and feel less precise.
Privacy glass and a sunroof, with top rails to aid stowage on the roof, set off the appearance. The front and grille appears to be a styling advancement on the Rodeo, IsuzuÂ’s once-popular compact SUV. I like the open-grille look, and the headlights are shielded by large glass covers, angled up before meeting the large parking-directional lights on the outside. Foglights are integrated, sunk into the lower fascia of the bumper.
Performance-wise, the in-line 6 accelerates well and seems well-suited to the AscenderÂ’s size and intentions. A four-speed automatic transmission, and on-demand four-wheel drive that can be changed from two to four to low-range with the touch of a rotating switch on the dash panel, work well. The power rack and pinion steering may have too much boost at cruising speed, but the Ascender stays put pretty well, because of coil-spring front and rear suspension. It has a 5,500-pound towing capacity, and a platform-type trailer hitch is standard, as are the 17-inch wheels.
Base price of the Ascender is $27,699, although you can quickly build it to $33,372 by adding option packages that include power driver seat, privacy glass, side moldings, keyless entry, side airbags (complementing the standard front driver-passenger bags), cruise control, moonroof, 6-CD changer in the upgraded audio, limited slip differential, alloy wheels, power passenger seat, and leather interior trim.
The 6 moves the Ascender with agility and swiftness, and still can get up to 21 miles per gallon during highway driving. Because itÂ’s no secret that TrailBlazers have turned into various other vehicles under different nameplates, it might seem silly to compare the Ascender with the TrailBlazer. But check out certain comparisons.
The engine, power ratings and other elements of measurement are identical, but the Isuzu gives you roadside assistance of 7 years, 75,000 miles instead of TrailBlazerÂ’s 3/36,000; a 3-year, 50,000-mile basic warranty, instead of 3/36,000; and a 7-year, 75,000-mile powertrain warranty, compared to the TrailBlazerÂ’s 3/36,000. Chrome accents on the fenders, fender moldings, 17-inch alloy wheels and the woodgrain are standard on the Ascender, and either not available or options on the TrailBlazer. Several other items also are extra-cost add-ons on the Chevy.
ThatÂ’s impressive, but the startling thing is that the base price of the Ascender is $27,699 — $4,471 less than the TrailBlazer. Once all the optional packages are loaded, the Ascender still is $3,498 under the TrailBlazer. In other words, you get more equipment and a better warranty for less money if your vehicle says “Isuzu†instead of “Chevrolet†on its grille, flanks and backside.
(John Gilbert writes weekly auto reviews; he can be contacted at cars@jwgilbert.com.)
Real life of Ford GT — and driver — begins at 150
ROMEO, MI. — Engine sounds hummed a harmonious chorus as we stood on the main straightaway of Ford Motor Company’s test track, where an assortment of 2005 Ford vehicles performed on various courses at the facility. Our eyes were trained to our right, on the horizon, where, sure enough, around the curve came an apparition of sorts, so low-slung it actually looked disproportionately wide for its jump-over height. Its exhaust note burbled as it slowed to its predetermined stopping point next to us, and it looked better and better as it grew closer and closer.
The Ford GT is perfectly at home on a race track, and we were standing on what would be the narrow left shoulder of the multi-lane, five-mile oval track used for high-speed testing at the Ford facility. The GT became known as the GT-40 back in the 1960s, when it was born to uphold the Ford family’s pride, and clearly over-achieved at that objective. Henry Ford had worked out a deal to buy Ferrari, which would have been an unbelievable coup, but Enzo Ferrari backed out at the last moment. Henry Ford was perturbed, so he assigned his best engineers to create a purpose-built road-racing car that could take on Ferrari, and the rest of the automotive world, at LeMans.
“Henry said, ‘We’ll beat ’em,” explained Chris Theodore. “In 1966, the Ford GT-40 won LeMans, and it was the first of four years in a row the cars won at LeMans.”
Theodore is Ford’s vice president of advanced product creation, and he said that a year and a half ago, when he unveiled the prototypes of the production reincarnation of the storied GT-40. Still, after several years of concept-car status, then show cars, it seemed unlikely to ever view this spectacularly styled and exotic two-seat sports car anywhere else but in an auto show, or on a racetrack. But fast-forward. Groups of automotive journalists had been gathered for daily ventures to Ford’s Romeo proving grounds each day last week, and we WERE on a racetrack, awaiting our chance to get a hands-on introduction to various 2005 model year Ford vehicles. The new 500 and Freestyle, as well as the Mercury Montego, were there on display, and various other cars and trucks were available to drive.
Several of those other cars were parked over on the infield side of the oval, including the 2005 Focus, some SUVs, and other vehicles for test laps. But I was among those on the other side, waiting for a chance to climb aboard one of two GTs — a silver prototype and a red production car. These things are going to be produced to order for a base price of $141,245, and demand is expected to outstrip supply. Ford expects to build only 1,000 or so a year, maybe 1,500, and the company anticipates a total vehicle run of 4,500, at which time production will end. Call it “instant classic.” Product spokesman David Reuter acknowledged that if public demand was sufficient to prod the company into building a few more, there might be some reconsidering.
In production, the car is the GT instead of the GT-40, because the race car was so fetching that various kit-car makers built replicas to put over whatever chassis and engine you might have, and someone copyrighted the name “GT-40.” Ford was prepared to buy the rights, but when the cost escalated to an outrageous plateau, Ford said forget it, altered the name from GT-40 to GT, and the replicar maker still has the name GT-40 without the large chunk of cash he was anticipating. If I were he, I would have given Ford the name in exchange for, say, one car.
Seeing one on the street, in actual traffic, will stop pedestrians in their tracks, and in this case “pedestrians” means anyone on foot or in any other vehicle this side of a Ferrari. The test track was the perfect site for the preview.
When my turn came, the driver’s door to the silver GT opened, which also opens about one-third of the roof, because the door curves over and becomes part of the roof. Get one foot in on the floor, and drop into the tightly contoured bucket seat, then pull in the other leg. Duck your head a bit to one side to close the door, because inattentiveness could cause a rap on the skull by the top of the door. Once cocooned, the feeling is of perfect fit, rather than confinement. The steering wheel tilts and telescopes, and you can easily see the tachometer, with its 8,000 RPM numbers, straight ahead. Several other gauges consume the rest of the dash, and the speedometer is way over to the right, closer to your passenger, but tilted toward any driver who might glance over to see what speed has been reached, from 0-220 miles per hour.
The six-speed transmission stalk juts up from the console, and the round ball at the top fits your right hand, and is inscribed with the pattern for six forward gears and reverse. You hit the shift hard to the left to engage reverse; hitting it semi-hard gets you past the detent so you can engage first. Blip the gas pedal and the engine snarls from behind you. Glance back, and you see a vertical plexiglass wall behind the seats, and the supercharger is the first thing you see through the glass. Behind that is the engine, a specially-hand-built 5.4-liter V8, with dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder. The supercharger takes it up to peaks of 550 horsepower and 500 foot-pounds of torque.
At 182.8 inches long, on a 106.7-inch wheelbase, the Ford GT is 76.9 inches wide and only 44.3 inches tall. As for stowage capabilities, you’d want to travel light, because cargo volume is, officially, 1.0 cubic feet. The only cargo I’m carrying is a high-performance engineer, who is waiting in the passenger seat with more courage than I’d have, riding around the track with a bunch of auto-writers, all varying levels of driving skill and experience.
I engage first, and as I slip the clutch and we launch, I notice another journalist has pulled out a few seconds ahead in a 2005 Focus. “Is it OK to pass?” I ask. “Sure,” my copilot says, “don’t worry about them; we’ll stay in the left lane, and they’ll stay in the right lane.” Good thing, because by the time he’s finished his sentence, we’ve shot past the Focus on the extreme left of the four-lane race track.
Hit second, then third, then fourth, still staying conservative because it’s the first time in the car, and on that track. As we head into the high-banked, 180-degree, constant-radius first turn, we’re going 100 mph as we climb up toward the steepest part of the 20-degree bank, riding in the left lane. Strangely, I find myself correcting the steering just slightly to the left several times, as we sail smoothly around the turn.
“That’s natural,” my tour guide says. “This is our high-speed oval, and the magic number is 149. Anything slower than 149, and the banking is steep enough that you’ll have to be easing the steering wheel to the left to stay up on the banking; anything faster than 149 and you’ll have to be easing it to the right to stay away from the guardrail. But at exactly 149, you could take your hands off the steering wheel and the car would go around the curve on its own.”
I choose not to even think about taking either hand off the form-fitting steering wheel, concentrating to come out of the turn smoothly, remaining calm and poised, even though — as the late John Candy would say — my heart was beating like a rabbit. The engine sound is spine-tingling, but I realize I’m still in fourth gear as we come off the banked turn, so I hit the gas, upshift to fifth, and then sixth. There is no feeling of overdoing it, although, as the 180-degree second turn seems to be approaching rapidly, my copilot says, “Hey, you hit 150.”
One hundred and fifty miles per hour. That’s something most people never experience except from inside a jet airliner. And shouldn’t be experienced anywhere other than a closed race course. I’ve done it a couple of times when I had the chance to test an old Can-Am race car, back in the 1970s at Brainerd International Raceway. It was the thrill of a lifetime then, and I’d highly recommend it to anyone who can handle a high-performance car as well as a jolt of exhilaration, but only in the right circumstances. Ford’s test track and the Ford GT conspired to create the perfect circumstances. Halfway around my first lap on the track and the car already feels like part of me.
“You might want to slow down for the next turn,” my advisor gently suggests. I do that. I ease off to 120 mph, and we go into the second turn, rising high on the banking, effortlessly holding 120 mph all the way around it. In Ford’s own high-speed tests, the GT hit an actual 212 mph, and the company installed a speed governor at 205.
As we come sailing off the second half-circle turn and onto the main straightaway, my copilot suggests: “You’ll want to start slowing down in a hurry. You can even try an ‘ABS stop’ to try out the antilock brakes.”
Oh yeah, I forgot. We only get one lap, and we’re already done. A five-mile track, and we made it in what seems like 20 seconds. So I get on the brakes, hard, and I gather in the GT almost immediately, thanks to its phenomenal, LeMans-ready, four-wheel disc brakes. That, too, was a good idea, because coasting to a stop might have carried us all the way to the first turn instead.
That cluster of journalists ahead is waiting in line for a turn at fulfilling more private fantasies. What can you say? Everybody asks how it felt, and only superlatives would come forth — awesome…unbelievable…amazing…fantastic…
Go stand in line again, hoping for another turn. It finally came, and I folded myself into the driver’s seat of the red GT, this time. Turn the key, hit the large red button, engage the shifter, and we’re off again. Now, there is no way I try to be a hero, or outdo my first lap, or anything of the kind. I just wanted three more minutes — time for another lap — behind the wheel of the GT. My passenger this time is a chassis engineer, who worked on building the superb suspension for the GT, which gets its phenomenal agility from being extremely light, thanks to the hydroformed aluminum construction of the spaceframe, and its aluminum skin.
As I accelerate up toward 100, my new copilot says: “As a guideline, keep it to 80 in the turns, and under 120 on the straight.”
“Huh?”
OK, so we compromised. I mentioned the speed I had attained without complication on my first lap, he was surprised that I was allowed to go that fast, so I held the red GT down on the second lap. Just as well. There was a slight vibration from the front left, indicating that possibly the car had lost a wheel weight, or maybe somebody hammered the brakes and flat-spotted one tire. No wait, the antilock brakes wouldn’t have allowed that.
A Ford GT with a slight tire vibration underscores again that this is going to be a real-world production car, albeit in small, selected doses. I can’t wait to see one on the street. You’ll recognize it when you see one, too. It’s one of those cars, like a Ferrari or a top-line Porsche GT, which costs well into six figures, and which will never — should never — be driven to the excessiveness of its capabilities on regular roadways. Its potential alone adds to the lure. It is strictly fantasy time, and people pay over $300,000 for the fantasy of owning a Ferrari. Compared to that, the $141,245 Ford GT actually sounds affordable, and it becomes the most stylish way to get to Fantasyland.
(John Gilbert writes weekly auto reviews. He can be reached at cars@jwgilbert.com.)
Dakota grows past midsize niche in new 2005 form
NASHVILLE, TENN. — Automotive promotion is a game, after all, so when the redesigned Dodge Dakota was introduced to the continentÂ’s motoring media, there were a few promotional passes thrown about, and not all of them had obvious receivers.
For example, while touted as the “largest midsize†truck, Dodge officials also indicated that the Dakota’s growth pretty well separates it into its own niche – larger than the compact trucks and still smaller than the full-size pickup fleet. So is being the largest midsize truck similar to being the smallest full-size truck? It’s all in where you’re sitting to view the game.
Game-time, according to Dodge, came when it was time to unveil its all-new 2005 Dakota pickup truck, or was it a new, rookie running back? It seemed like both, because Dodge chose to take the assembled automotive journalists to the Tennessee Titans NFL football stadium in downtown Nashville to unveil the 2005 Dakota.
True to DaimlerChrysler’s heritage, the Dodge folks had a novel idea for the intro, and rolled out the array of other trucks in its “lineup†as if they were the starting linemen for an NFL game. There was the new Durango, the Ram 1500, the RAM SRT-10 hot-rod, the Ram 600 Cummins Diesel, and the to-be-released Power Wagon. Then, at the right moment, the new Dakota was introduced, and it was driven, crashing through a paper tunnel over the player entrance and out onto the playing field.
Actually two new Dakotas came through, both an extended Club Cab and a full, four-door Quad Cab. They circled out onto the playing field and lined up, front and center, as if they were the star running backs in the lineup, with everything in place except the perfunctory high-fives from teammates.
Sadly, for all of DodgeÂ’s preparations, the public address system choked up during the introductions, and then Dieter Zetsche, the always-eloquent chairman for Dodge and Chrysler under DaimlerÂ’s watch, announced how appropriate it was to introduce the Dakota in the “home of the NHL Tennessee Titans.†Dieter already had confided that he prefers hockey to football, so fumbling the snap on the Titans being in the NFL — while the crosstown NHL team is the Nashville Predators — was excusable.
Dakota is definitely up for rookie of the year, because it has an all-new platform and all-new bodywork, and it is impressive to look at, to ride in and to drive. Dodge expects to sell 110,000 Dakotas per year as a volume product, continuing on the success of the current Dakota, which was introduced in 1977, and was a solid midsize truck that ultimately was used as the base for the first Durango. The Durango grew for 2004, gaining its own unique platform, and while it might have made sense for the 2005 Dakota to use that platform, it would have stretched the Dakota beyond its midsize intentions. So it also gets a new and unique platform.
With the macho Ram trucks in the background, it also was interesting to note that the new Dakota has taken on a much more muscular, macho look, and it’s more than just the Ram’s little-brother image. The Dakota, to my eye, has a better proportioned look than even the big Ram. Dennis Myles, the senior design manager for Dodge trucks, acknowledged that the Ram was so bold that it was “softened†a little to be less edgy in its newest styling redo, so by definitely becoming edgier, the new Dakota is decidedly more macho than its larger, more veteran sibling.
The Dakota price structure is indeed impressive, with the base ST Club Cab with two-wheel drive starting at $19,210, and the V8 version at $19,995. Moving up to the Quad Cab the base is $21,419, while going up to four-wheel drive puts the base at $22,869 for the Club Cab and $24,269 for the Quad Cab. Those base prices rise to a range of $21,774 to $26,024 for the upscale SLT versions, and rise to a range of $24,984 to $29,324 for the top-line Laramies.
Even though the platform and suspension were changed along with the rest of the truck, the whole process was carefully planned so that the assembly line changeover at the Warren, Mich., plant was executed during the plantÂ’s annual two-week summer shutdown. The once-over styling cues Myles pointed out on the new Dakota included, in his words: “Crystalline headlightsÂ…crosshair grilleÂ…broad-shouldered lookÂ…muscular fender bulgesÂ…double-barreled afterburner taillightsÂ…Ââ€
Dakota program manager Dave McDonald then took the handoff – we were still on the football stadium’s turf, after all – and moved upfield.
Wind-tunnel testing had designed the A-pillar’s slope, he said, and he pointed out the silencing pads on the underside of the hood and elsewhere on the truck, and the exhaust note was refined through resonators both ahead of and behind the muffler. The new hydroformed and fully boxed frame was twice as stiff against bending, and eight times stiffer in torsional rigidity. “Full-size capability in a mid-size package,†McDonald said.
“It also has the only V8 in the midsize segment,†Myles added, which gave me reason to ponder the segment as Dodge sees it.
The Ford Ranger has stayed compact, while the new General Motors twins, the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon have both grown a bit from their S-10 compact size, but are still considered compacts. Nissan, with the Frontier, and Toyota, with the Tacoma, also remains compact. Out there as full-size pickups are the usual forces – Ford’s F150, Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, the Dodge Ram, the new Nissan Titan, and the Toyota Tundra.
The Dakota, Dodge figures, is right between those two segments. But is it? Aside from the oversight that the Dakota intro was in the “Titans†Stadium, which might have given some of the journalists cause to think about Nissan’s new ace truck, Dodge may have overlooked the Tundra, Toyota’s classy pickup which has been criticized for being slightly less than full-size whenever full-size truck guys talk trucks.
Sure enough, looking at the statistics, the Ford F150 is 228 inches long, and the Titan is 224, Dakota comes in well shorter at 218.8 inches in length, and still significantly larger than the ColoradoÂ’s 207-inch length. So far, so good.
But the Toyota Tundra is 218.3 inches in length – meaning the midsize Dakota is actually longer than the allegedly full-size Tundra. That means Dakota is not as unique as Dodge would like us to believe in its “only V8†promotion, because the Tundra has a high-tech, dual-overhead-camshaft, 32-valve 4.7-liter V8 available.
Still, for anyone other than someone who needs a full-towing/hauling work truck, the sleeker and more driving-lane-friendly size of the Dakota – or Tundra, for that matter – might be more appealing.
Dodge gave its new truck an impressive array of powerplants, with the base 3.7-liter V6 opening with 210 horsepower and 235 foot-pounds of torque. Next step is to the optional 4.7-liter V8, with 230 horses and 290 torque. And the pinnacle is the 4.7-liter V8 high-output version, with 250 horsepower and 300 foot-pounds of torque. With a base six-speed stick shift or a very impressive five-speed automatic as transmission choices, the power goes to the ground well enough to register a 7,150-pound towing limit, which leaves the ColoradoÂ’s 4,000-pound maximum far behind. An 1,800-pound payload, with tow hooks and other work-oriented implements available, makes the Dakota a willing worker for all but the heaviest work.
The Tundra, however, has quite-similar ratings, with 7,200-pound towing and 1,710-pound payload in regular cab, and over 1,800-pound payload with 6,800-pound towing in Double Cab form. Dodge, however, ignores the Tundra as a competitor, whether for size, having a V8, or in hauling capability.
Maybe that also goes back to the public-relations scheme. Dodge PR types cleverly left a welcoming gift in each journalist’s room – a bottle of V-8 juice on ice, in order to subtly stress the Dakota’s “only-V8†theme.
The DakotaÂ’s agility and handling capabilities were impressive while negotiating the winding roadways of suburban Tennessee, out and away from PrinterÂ’s Alley, the dozens of honky-tonks, and Ernest TubbÂ’s Record Shop in downtown Nashville. We got a chance to see how firmly stable the Dakota would stay on twisty and narrow two-lane highways, and also to check out brief trailer-towing and unloaded runs.
Dual-rate springs, changes in shock location, spring rates and stabilizer bars have improved the DakotaÂ’s handling. The firmness and handling is enhanced by coil-over shock absorbers, revised rack-and-pinion steering system, supporting the fully-boxed frame. A part-time four-wheel drive system with low range is standard in four-wheel versions, while an optional full-time four-wheel drive transfer case allows four-wheel drive all the time, with a center differential allowing for different front-axle speeds to compensate for steering.
The Club Cab comes with a 6-foot-6 box, while the longer Quad Cab has a 5-foot-4 box. The full Quad Cab has room for two or three occupants in the rear, although legroom and the backrest angle are not exactly limousine-like. That, however, is probably a wise move. Kids and shorter adults can ride back there with no problem, and if you need the Quad Cab to regularly haul rear-seat adults, you probably need the larger Ram.
“ThereÂ’s always a tradeoff with ride and handling in designing a pickup,†said McDonald. “Trucks handle so much differently when theyÂ’re loaded or unloaded. WeÂ’ve got a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,010 pounds, and we think the ride and handling unloaded is outstanding, and loaded or while trailer towing itÂ’s still very good.Ââ€
“The Dakota was the only midsize truck, but now others are trying to move in,†said Troy Branch, DakotaÂ’s marketing guy. “WeÂ’ve just raised the bar. The 2005 Dakota is actually $1,000 cheaper than the 2004 model it replaces, and now we offer the only V8 in any vehicle under $20,000.Ââ€
True, most truck buyers will choose to load up their $19,995 base Dakotas with options, but DodgeÂ’s boast is correct: No other truck-maker, noted or ignored, can build a V8-powered pickup to sell at under $20,000.
(John Gilbert writes weekly auto reviews. He can be reached at cars@jwgilbert.com.)
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