Dodge Ram Mega Cab takes big pickup command
It can be intimidating when you first walk up to the big – BIG – Dodge Ram Mega Cab pickup. If it isn’t, then maybe you drive over-the-road big rigs for a living. Or one of those plow-fronted dump trucks full of that salt-sand glop we cover the roads with once winter hits.
Still, approaching the Ram Mega Cab gets your attention. I had driven one at the introduction, just outside of Washington, D.C., so it didn’t seem all that intimidating to me, but the ones I’d driven were the normal1500 and the slightly-bigger-than-normal 2500. The monster that was delivered to me for a week-long test drive was the 3500 – the biggest, baddest pickup truck on the market, in that form.
When you get close enough to open the driverÂ’s door, you have a decision to make. Should you step up on the neatly styled bar and take the wimpÂ’s way to climb on board,, or should you merely hop in? ItÂ’s a question better answered if we know whether you have Olympic high-jumper on your resume.
Trust me, stepping on the rail and then up and in may not seem the macho way to go, but itÂ’s far more acceptable than trying to vault all the way up, because you could find yourself catching the grab-handle so you can pin your hip against the side of the seat for leverage, while you pull yourself the rest of the way. I tried it that way once, and figured itÂ’s a feeling that must be familiar to mountain climbers when they under-estimate the length of their next step and suddenly must pin themselves against the side of the mountain and wait for help from a partner, pulling on the rope from above.
Once youÂ’re up and in, the intimidation is gone and everything looks good. Switchwork and controls are right where you want them, and thereÂ’s all sorts of room. Dodge made sure of that.
DodgeÂ’s reasoning for building the Mega Cab was pretty sound. Full-size pickups continue to sell well, led by Ford and Chevy, but crowded by Dodge, Nissan, and soon ToyotaÂ’s all-new Tundra, while the new Honda Ridgeline can steal customers from anyone who might prefer something closer to a combined SUV and pickup. The full-size crew cab sales rose by 27 percent over last year, which meant 750,000 vehicles sold in 2004.
So if full-size, amd full-crew four-door pickups are both rising to take over, why not build the biggest one?
The trick is that Dodge started with the 160.5-inch wheelbase heavy-duty 2500 chassis in long-box form. They replaced the 8-foot cargo box with one measuring 6-foot-3, which allowed them to extend the crew cab by 20 inches. That makes it 111.1 inches in itself, longer by a foot than the Ford F-250 Crew CabÂ’s occupant compartment.
The interior room is put to good use. The rear bench seat first of all can be accessed by rear doors opening 85 degrees – almost full perpendicular to the body. That makes it easy to get in and out through an opening 34.5 inches wide and 35.5 inches tall.
The backrest of the rear seat is not up against the rear wall, which means you donÂ’t have to sit bolt-upright, as you do in some multiple-seat pickups. In fact, there is 7.7 cubic feet of cargo room behind the rear seat, which is an obviously useful asset. Even more useful, perhaps, is that the rear seat backrest will tilt from 22 to 37 degrees in reclining.
With 44.2 inches of rear legroom, and a reclining backrest, what in the world can rear seat occupants find to entertain themselves? How about a disc-playing video screen that folds down from the ceiling?
So if you need to, you could seat six adults with more head, shoulder, hip and leg room than you might think possible, this side of a coach bus. In fact, IÂ’ve been in coach buses with far less legroom. On top of that, the rear seat backrests fold down fully flat all the way across, or on a 60-40 basis, so you can haul some extra stuff and still take a couple of passengers back there. When two passengers are back there, the center backrest converts to a console.
The impressive gauge layout, and driving controls, make the driverÂ’s work easy, as well. The audio controls are big and easy to grab, and the test vehicle had Sirius satellite radio, so I passed time rotating among the comedy stations and Margaritaville, the new station that plays either Jimmy Buffett songs, his concerts, or neat music he has allegedly selected for inclusion.
{IMG2}
But the biggest surprise I had was that once underway, the Ram Mega Cab is disarmingly easy to drive, with smooth maneuverability and precise-steering feel allowing you to trace the lane markers around any curve. Every full-size pickup built in the last 10 years has boasted about its “car-like†ride and handling characteristics. The Dodge doesn’t wimp out and pretend it is something it isn’t – it demands attention for its macho stance, but it just happens to steer and handle as well as any full-size truck I’ve driven.
When it comes to power, Dodge has made great headlines recently with the return of the Hemi, its 5.7-liter V8. The 1500 and 2500 versions of the Mega Cab come with that Hemi, as the only engine in the 1500 and the base engine in the 2500. But the test vehicle was the full-blown 3500 model, which is armed with the 5.9-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel. Yes, in case the 5.7 Hemi, with 345 horsepower and 375 foot-pounds of torque, isnÂ’t enough, you can move up to the Cummins Diesel, which has 325 horsepower and a staggering 610 foot-pounds of torque.
A new six-speed automatic transmission handles the diesel.
Consider that the 1500 with the Hemi has a towing capacity of 7,750 pounds, and maximum payload of 2,410 pounds. The 3500, with the Cummins Turbo Diesel, has a towing weight of 15,800 pounds, and payload of 2,840 pounds.
Dodge said it took care in design, so that the Mega Cab would “reinforce†Dodge Ram’s big rig look. Not to worry.
Unique suspension settings are made for each model, with the monotube shocks and suspension set for ride comfort on the 1500, more for workers on the 2500 and 3500. But considerable care was given to insulating the cab from road and wind noises.
The base 1500 Mega Cab starts at $32,760 in two-wheel-drive mode, and about $3,000 more for a 4×4. In 3500 form, the base SLT two-wheel-drive starts at $40,410. The 4×4 SLT I test drove started at $42,600, and had an as-tested sticker of $49,675, after such options as front buckets, extra side airbags, an audio upgrade and, of course, the rear-seat video.
It is interesting what the SUV craze has done to our truck-drivinÂ’ guys. Used to be, cars were for passengers and trucks were for work. As SUVs came on to replace station wagons and minivans, to some extent, they grew bigger and more cushy inside. So it figures that big pickups would follow the trend. No longer does the guy who drives a pickup for work want any limitations.
Bob Hegbloom from Dodge truck marketing, said: “People want comfort, convenience, and versatility. They want to be able to haul their family and also work heavy duty.Ââ€
The Ram Mega Cab will do it all, and all at one time. And it’s not as intimidating once you’re inside – just make sure to use that step rail.
It can be intimidating, walking up to the big – BIG – Dodge Ram Mega Cab pickup. If it isn’t, then maybe you drive over-the-road big rigs for a living. Or a cement mixer. Or one of those plow-fronted dump trucks full of that salt-sand glop we cover the roads with once winter hits.
Even then, approaching the Ram Mega Cab gets your attention. I had driven one at the introduction, just outside of Washington, D.C., so it didn’t seem all that intimidating to me. The ones I’d driven there, though, were the normal 1500 and the slightly-bigger-than-normall 2500. The monster that was delivered to me for a week-long test drive was the 3500 – the biggest, baddest pickup truck on the market.
When you get close enough to open the driverÂ’s door, you have an easy decision to make. Should you step up on the neatly styled bar, or should you merely hop in? ItÂ’s a question better answered if we know whether you have Olympic high-jumper on your resume.
Trust me, stepping on the rail and then up and in may not seem the macho way to go, but itÂ’s far more acceptable than trying to hop all the way up, and catching the grab-handle so you can pin your hip against the side of the seat for leverage, while you pull yourself the rest of the way. ItÂ’s a feeling that must be familiar to mountain climbers when they over-estimate the length of their next step and suddenly appreciate all the help they can get from a partner, pulling on a rope from above.
Once youÂ’re up and in, everything looks good. Switchwork and controls are right where you want them, and thereÂ’s all sorts of room. Dodge made sure of that.
DodgeÂ’s reasoning for building the Mega Cab was pretty sound. Full-size pickups continue to sell well, led by Ford and Chevy, but crowded by Dodge, Nissan, and soon ToyotaÂ’s all-new Tundra, while the new Honda Ridgeline can steal customers from anyone who might prefer something closer to a combined SUV and pickup. The full-size crew cab sales rose by 27 percent over last year, which meant 750,000 vehicles sold in 2004.
So if full-size, amd full-crew four-door pickups are both rising to take over, why not build the biggest one?
The trick is that Dodge started with the 160.5-inch wheelbase heavy-duty 2500 chassis in long-box form. They replaced the 8-foot cargo box with one measuring 6-foot-3, which allowed them to extend the crew cab by 20 inches. That makes it 111.1 inches in itself, longer by a foot than the Ford F-250 Crew CabÂ’s occupant compartment.
The interior room is put to good use. The rear bench seat first of all can be accessed by rear doors opening 85 degrees – almost full perpendicular to the body. That makes it easy to get in and out through an opening 34.5 inches wide and 35.5 inches tall.
The backrest of the rear seat is not up against the rear wall, which means you donÂ’t have to sit bolt-upright, as you do in some multiple-seat pickups. In fact, there is 7.7 cubic feet of cargo room behind the rear seat, which is an obviously useful asset. Even more useful, perhaps, is that the rear seat backrest will tilt from 22 to 37 degrees in reclining.
With 44.2 inches of rear legroom, and a reclining backrest, what in the world can rear seat occupants find to entertain themselves? How about a disc-playing video screen that folds down from the ceiling?
So if you need to, you could seat six adults with more head, shoulder, hip and leg room than you might think possible, this side of a coach bus. In fact, IÂ’ve been in coach buses with far less legroom. On top of that, the rear seat backrests fold down fully flat all the way across, or on a 60-40 basis, so you can haul some extra stuff and still take a couple of passengers back there. When two passengers are back there, the center backrest converts to a console.
The impressive gauge layout, and driving controls, make the driverÂ’s work easy, as well. The audio controls are big and easy to grab, and the test vehicle had Sirius satellite radio, so I passed time rotating among the comedy stations and Margaritaville, the new station that plays either Jimmy Buffett songs, his concerts, or neat music he has allegedly selected for inclusion.
{IMG2}
But the biggest surprise I had was that once underway, the Ram Mega Cab is disarmingly easy to drive, with smooth maneuverability and precise-steering feel allowing you to trace the lane markers around any curve. Every full-size pickup built in the last 10 years has boasted about its “car-like†ride and handling characteristics. The Dodge doesn’t wimp out and pretend it is something it isn’t – it demands attention for its macho stance, but it just happens to steer and handle as well as any full-size truck I’ve driven.
When it comes to power, Dodge has made great headlines recently with the return of the Hemi, its 5.7-liter V8. The 1500 and 2500 versions of the Mega Cab come with that Hemi, as the only engine in the 1500 and the base engine in the 2500. But the test vehicle was the full-blown 3500 model, which is armed with the 5.9-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel. Yes, in case the 5.7 Hemi, with 345 horsepower and 375 foot-pounds of torque, isnÂ’t enough, you can move up to the Cummins Diesel, which has 325 horsepower and a staggering 610 foot-pounds of torque.
A new six-speed automatic transmission handles the diesel.
Consider that the 1500 with the Hemi has a towing capacity of 7,750 pounds, and maximum payload of 2,410 pounds. The 3500, with the Cummins Turbo Diesel, has a towing weight of 15,800 pounds, and payload of 2,840 pounds.
Dodge said it took care in design, so that the Mega Cab would “reinforce†Dodge Ram’s big rig look. Not to worry.
Unique suspension settings are made for each model, with the monotube shocks and suspension set for ride comfort on the 1500, more for workers on the 2500 and 3500. But considerable care was given to insulating the cab from road and wind noises.
The base 1500 Mega Cab starts at $32,760 in two-wheel-drive mode, and about $3,000 more for a 4×4. In 3500 form, the base SLT two-wheel-drive starts at $40,410. The 4×4 SLT I test drove started at $42,600, and had an as-tested sticker of $49,675, after such options as front buckets, extra side airbags, an audio upgrade and, of course, the rear-seat video.
It is interesting what the SUV craze has done to our truck-drivinÂ’ guys. Used to be, cars were for passengers and trucks were for work. As SUVs came on to replace station wagons and minivans, to some extent, they grew bigger and more cushy inside. So it figures that big pickups would follow the trend. No longer does the guy who drives a pickup for work want any limitations.
Bob Hegbloom from Dodge truck marketing, said: “People want comfort, convenience, and versatility. They want to be able to haul their family and also work heavy duty.Ââ€
The Ram Mega Cab will do it all, and all at one time. Just remember to use the step rail.
Reichmuth secures 3-point UMD weekend over Gophers
DULUTH, MN. — When rebuilding with freshmen, it’s vital for a team’s veterans to come through to assure success, and Minnesota-Duluth found the right combination at exactly the right time to grab three points with a tie and a victory against Minnesota.
With 10 freshmen in the lineup – 10 comparatively unheralded freshmen, it must be added – UMD senior goaltender Isaac Reichmuth gave the Bulldogs his best weekend. It’s possible that Reichmuth, from Fruitvale, British Columbia, has never played two better games under intense pressure than he did in securing a 2-2 tie and 4-3 victory against the archrival Gophers.
Not only did Reichmuth make 72 saves before two packed houses at the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center, but the five goals he gave up out of 77 shots all were on rebounds in heavy traffic. Perhaps the only time Reichmuth was caught off-guard all weekend was when he was asked if he could remember ever playing a better game than he had in the 2-2 first game.
“I canÂ’t remember one,†he shrugged. “I felt good, and everybody on the team played well.Ââ€
As intense rivalries go, the Minnesota-Duluth vs. the University of Minnesota has taken some strange twists and turns. The UMD Bulldogs, for example, had gone 7-2 in their last nine games against the Gophers going into the series, but Minnesota had gone 14-2 against UMD right until that streak.
Minnesota seemed pretty certain to turn things around against the Bulldogs this season, because the Gophers had been ranked No. 1 in the league and the nation to start the season, based mainly on a recruiting crop rated clearly the best in the nation. UMD, on the other hand, had built up a contending team that peaked two years ago under coach Scott Sandelin, but it suffered a disappointing nosedive to sixth with a senior-dominated team last season.
The Bulldog recruiting crop was huge to replace all the seniors from last season, but it wasnÂ’t ranked nearly as high as MinnesotaÂ’s, and nobody was forecasting anything close to contention for UMD. When the Bulldogs opened by losing twice at home to Bemidji State, then twice more at Vermont, they lookedÂ…well, like a team with a lot of freshmen. Opening the WCHA season with a victory and a tie at Michigan Tech was pretty good, but didnÂ’t insulate UMD from risking being blown out by the Gophers when the big rivalry was renewed.
Minnesota, meanwhile, had been led offensively by freshmen Phil Kessel and Blake Wheeler, but the Gophers hadnÂ’t exactly gotten off to a great start, either. Sweeping Minnesota State-Mankato was a pretty good WCHA start, but splitting at St. Cloud State exposed some problems, and Minnesota shared UMDÂ’s need for the veterans to come up big as the rookies got some experience.
UMD gained a beachhead in the opening 2-2 tie, a masterful high-speed chess-match. UMDÂ’s Steve Czech, the only senior amid three freshmen and two sophomores on defense, was gone in the first four minutes for a checking-from-behind penalty. Chris Harrington, one of only two seniors on MinnesotaÂ’s blue line, was tossed for checking from behind with 2:45 remaining in the third period, as if to complete an odd pair of bookends. Neither team scored on those five-minute power plays, with HarringtonÂ’s carrying over through much of overtime.
MinnesotaÂ’s freshmen struck first, as Wheeler took off on a breakaway and shot off the right post, and when the puck caromed to the left side of the crease, Reichmuth tried to get his split-leg over it, but Kessel chipped it up and in for a power-play goal and a 1-0 first period. UMD countered in the second period, on a two-man power play, when freshmen Matt Niskanen and Mason Raymond collaborated to get the puck to senior Tim Stapleton, who beat Kellen Briggs at point-blank range.
Reichmuth had by far the tougher shots to face as the Gophers swarmed on offense, outshooting UMD 37-33 for the game, but Andrew Carroll, another of those unsung UMD freshmen, rushed up the left side and fired a 40-foot shot that beat Briggs high to the short side with only 6:58 remaining.
Then it was time for Minnesota captain Gino Guyer to come through, and he did, lunging after a loose rebound in the slot and sliding it just inside the right post with 4:37 left. Guyer had another great chance from the slot, but Reichmuth solved it, and the teams left their 2-2 deadlock to be determined in Game 2.
Reichmuth duplicated what some called his best game as a Bulldog in the Saturday game. His teammates started strong, as freshman Nick Kemp scored a remarkable goal at 0:48 of the first period. Kemp had fed off the right boards to Matt McKnight, sending him up the left side into the Minnesota zone behind the Gopher defense. McKnight was home free on the breakaway, but instead of shooting he passed left-to-right across the slot, where the trailing Kemp scored on what wound up a 2-on-0 at Briggs.
{IMG2}
Kessel, a center who had played a couple games at wing on the first line, moved back to center for the second game and scored his fourth goal of the young season with another power-play rebound goal for a 1-1 tie at 4:19. But Justin Williams, in the right circle, one-timed fellow-senior StapletonÂ’s pass for a far-side power-play goal at 8:07, and UMD led 2-1.
Reichmuth withstood a five-shot power-play flurry to hold the lead, then UMDÂ’s freshmen struck again. MinnesotaÂ’s Kris Chucko fired a shot off the upper right post behind Reichmuth, but Carroll raced right back to the other end and somehow squeezed a shot from the left circle that through a space where there appeared to be none between the short-side pipe and freshman goalie Jeff Frazee.
Minnesota coach Don Lucia pulled the highly-touted Frazee at that moment and put Briggs back in goal for the second half of the game. He kept it to 3-1 into the third period, and Ryan Potulny, a junior center who had been dropped from first line to third when Kessel went back to the middle, scored at 2:21 by converting a long rebound.
Just 31 seconds later, however, the remarkable Carroll, whose college credentials blossomed when he went from Roseville High School to play for Sioux Falls in the USHL, deflected in a point shot by fellow-freshman Travis Gawryletz, and his third goal of the weekend restored UMDÂ’s two-goal edge at 4-2.
Minnesota put on its strongest pressure of the weekend the rest of the third period, outshooting UMD 21-5 for the period and 40-28 for the game, but Reichmuth was not about to vary from his brilliant weekend. The only goal he let in came when Potulny rapped in a wide-right rebound of KesselÂ’s left circle power-play try with 7:28 remaining.
Risky as it is to play a containment game against an offensively potent foe, it worked for UMD, thanks to Reichmuth. Like Briggs, ReichmuthÂ’s career has shown brilliant stretches dotted liberally with some leaky goals, although Lucia disputed that.
“His whole career, Reichmuth has played that way against us,†Lucia said. “WeÂ’re not in sync right now. The third period was great – we played with desperation. But youÂ’ve got to play the second period, too.Ââ€
Potulny was more direct. “Talent doesnÂ’t beat hard work,†he said. “WeÂ’ve got to find that swagger. Usually when we walk into a building, we do it with a swagger. I think weÂ’ve done enough talking, weÂ’ve got to go out and do it.Ââ€
When the Gophers left the DECC, it was with more of a stagger than swagger. The season is still young, but no team is younger than UMD’s Bulldogs, who played freshmen Carroll, Mason Raymond, Kemp, Matt Greer, and Jay Cascalenda up front – with Matt Gergen sitting out – while Niskanen, Jason Garrison, Josh Meyers and Adam Davis gave them four more freshmen on defense.
While they looked raggedly youthful in their first half-dozen games, they came of age against the Gophers – with a large assist coming from their four seniors, including Reichmuth. ESPECIALLY Reichmuth, who has led the Bulldogs to an improbable 8-2-1 record in their last 11 games against Minnesota. And a 2-0-2 record in the WCHA.
Can linebacker-size RAV4 still carry the “cute-ute” ball?
ATLANTA, GA. — Like the cute little kid next door who grows up to be a pro football star, the new Toyota RAV4 is not exactly an offensive tackle, but it has grown from running back to at least linebacker size for 2006.
At the introduction of the 2006 RAV4 to motoring journalists this past week in Atlanta, we were also issued an embargo – we can’t write about our driving impressions until after November 28. So, we will pretend that I haven’t driven the new models (wink-wink), while discussing the styling and concept changes, which are more than just significant.
Consider that the RAV4, one of the charter members of the “cute-ute†category, is growing by more than a foot in length, gets stuffed with an optional third-row seat, and now houses an optional V6 with great power. OK, it’s still cute, but it’s more 4Runner-rugged than cute-ute in its newly grownup form.
The Toyota RAV4 has remained a steadfast pillar of sanity for about a decade by staying efficiently small in a burgeoning world of gigantic SUVs. For 2006, Toyota has apparently decided that the RAV4 should become part of the sprawl it had so impressively avoided.
Toyota has energetically – and successfully – battled for a large piece of the SUV pie. While the RAV4 handled the lighter, commuter-dominated compact end of the spectrum, the 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Land Cruiser carry the Toyota banner at the larger end, while its upscale Lexus line boasts the RX330, GX470, LX470 in the luxury SUV segment. The RAV4 helped originate the most-compact end, where it has battled the Honda CR-V and Ford Escape, and now faces competition from 20 rivals.
Jim Farley, ToyotaÂ’s vice president of marketing in the U.S., said the RAV4 was the first car-based SUV, although chief rival Honda brought out the CR-V at about the same time, 10 years ago. The Highlander and its counterpart RX330 also are built on car platforms, and the industry has clearly shifted that direction and away from the heavy-duty, truck-based SUVs, which might be best for towing and large-scale hauling, but become inefficient gas-guzzlers in daily on-road use. Car-based SUVs compromise sedan-quality ride with SUV utility, and now comprise 79 percent of all small SUVs and 32 percent of midsize SUVs.
The RAV4 offers the populace a quick and fun alternative to larger SUVs, which saw their popularity drop as swiftly as gasoline prices shot past $2 a gallon. While keeping its compact exterior small, the RAV4 kept prices low and four-cylinder fuel-efficiency high, and made sense for single folks, young marrieds, small families, and people who wanted the advantages of four-wheel drive in a commuter vehicle.
As far as off-roading goes, more than 90 percent of all SUV buyers never venture farther off-road than the dirt road to the cabin up north anyway. While the RAV4 has never been Jeep-like off-road, it always handled moderate off-roading, while being far more user-friendly in on-road usage than any larger SUV with one or two aboard.
Now, suddenly, the RAV4 is vaulting upward. The new RAV4Â’s exterior style is considerably different, retaining its trademark contoured lines, but they now arc in different directions to a more-abrupt rear that almost seems as if it intends to make the vehicle look smaller than it actually is.
Built on a new platform, the new RAV4 is 14.5 inches longer than the 2005 model, with wheelbase 6.7 inches longer, standing 3.2 inches wider, and 0.6 inches taller. Interesting that the RAV4 that used to be 22 inches shorter than the midsize 4Runner is now 8 inches shorter, and its wheelbase, which used to be nearly 12 inches shorter than the 4Runner is now 5 inches shorter.
The 3.5-liter V6 is an impressive engine option. It is a short-stroke version of the 4.0-liter that appears in the Tacoma, Tundra and 4Runner. It is a high-tech, 24-valve, dual-overhead cam V6 with variable valve-timing on both intake and exhaust valves, a variation of the engine that powers the new Avalon sedan. In the RAV4, that engine produces 269 horsepower at 6,200 RPMs and 246 foot-pounds of torque at 4,700 RPMs. It will go, Toyota says, from 0-60 in less than 7 seconds.
Some journalists pounced on the interesting “fact†that the V6 shows 21 miles per gallon city and 28 mpg highway by EPA estimate, compared to the 22/29 figure for the 2.4-liter base 4-cylinder. Only a 1-mpg difference? Journalists who depend on such vague estimates as the EPA produces were snapped back to reality when I asked if Toyota’s actual findings didn’t show a considerably greater disparity between the two in real-world driving. Farley agreed that real-world fuel economy would widen the gap considerablt – the first time I’ve ever heard a manufacturer’s official admitting that obvious fact.
The 2.4-liter 4 is an improved engine too, with magnesium cylinder heads, a gain from 161 to 166 horsepower at 6,000 RPMs, and 165 foot-pounds of torque at 4,000 revs.
Both engines come with automatic transmissions, the V6 getting a 5-speed, and the 4 getting a 4-speed. Toyota claims the uphill and downhill logic will work to hold a gear going uphill and to downshift earlier to help deceleration when going downhill. We could have verified that, if we had actually driven the vehicles (wink-wink), same as we could describe the adequacy of the 4 compared to the power of the V6.
Electric power steering modernizes the performance, and a redesigned suspension underpins the bigger RAV4. If IÂ’d driven the vehicle more, I might have grown to like the too-large cupholders, which would keep a Big Gulp steady but cause water or pop bottles to swivel around freely. Could be a preproduction problem that will be altered by the time we, ahem, drive production versions.
A big asset of the RAV4 is its electronic on-demand 4-wheel drive that transfers power from front-wheel drive to split up to 45 percent to the rear axle when needed. In automatic mode, torque is distributed to the front all the time, and to all wheels for stability during slippery situations or during takeoff, then power to the rear is reduced once underway or during low-speed turns.
The driver can throw a switch to lock the 4-wheel drive in 55-percent front/45-percent rear in all conditions. That makes it comparable to any 4×4 with a center-lockl differential, but it reverts to automatic operation if you hit the brakes or go faster than 25 miles per hour.
{IMG2}
Further drivability features include a hill-holding mechanism that prevents the RAV4 from rolling backwards for two or three seconds when you take your foot off the brake to reapply the gas. It’s standard on V6 models, optional with the 4. Also, a downhill assist control slows descent, if you activate a switch in low gear – working like a 4 mph cruise control. That is standard on V6 models, and on 4-cylinder RAVs with the third-row seat option.
The new RAV4 is available in Base, Limited, and Sport, and with front-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive, just as it is with the 4 or V6. Farley said the new and enlarged RAV4 is going after a much broader piece of the market, and Toyota projects selling 135,000 RAV4s a year at a price still to be determined. ThatÂ’s a 100 percent improvement from 2005 model sales.
He said the new vehicle targets three segments – first, women, who are expected to make up 65 percent of RAV4 buyers; second young married couples, which project to 60 percent of buyers; and third, single males, looking for strong and sporty performance.
Hmmm. I know a number of folks who are happy owners of RAV4s. They love their vehicles, and the biggest asset, they tell me, is the compact maneuverability. Therefore, with the RAV4 now 14 inches longer, and with a third-row fold-down seat, a V6 available, and seeking new market conquests, I asked what would happen to the previous and current RAV4 owners?
“We don’t expect to lose any of our existing buyers,†Farley said.
Hmmm, again. Growing from neighborhood touch football size to NFL linebacker and attracting a whole new segment, while also retaining all the buyers who love the small, agile, scatback size of the RAV4Â’s heritage, is indeed an optimistic outlook. It almost makes you think Toyota might be planning another new compact SUV in the near future.
Can anyone say: “FJ?†That’s another secret. It’s the name of the two-year-old Jeep-like SUV concept. Look for it in production form at an introduction soon. Maybe we’ll even get to drive it, so I can stop this infernal winking.
Sioux erupt to sweep UMD with — or without — Stafford
As the old saying goes, you can watch 1,000 hockey games but there’s a good chance that at the next one you might see something you’ve never seen before. It happened when North Dakota played at Minnesota-Duluth in the first game of another of what is becoming a trend this season – a weird two-game series.
Drew Stafford played a major role in North DakotaÂ’s sweep, although not at all by design. He did it all in the 5-3 first game by getting a hat trick and an assist, and he left the second game early, almost as if to prove his suddenly explosive teammates could romp 7-4 without their hottest scorer.
StaffordÂ’s biggest role, in retrospect, may prove to be his part in the game-ending play of Game 1, a play that will make a great trivia quiz question: How can you score a goal without getting a shot on goal?
UMD was coming off an impressive tie and victory against Minnesota, while North Dakota was striving to break free of a three-game losing streak, having just dropped 4-2 and 4-1 games at home against Wisconsin. As in “underrated†Wisconsin, or “first-place†Wisconsin.
Stafford isnÂ’t likely to forget that first game. The junior winger scored in the first minute of the game, and when Ryan Duncan drilled a high-right corner shot on a 2-on-1 rush at 2:14 it was 2-0. UMD coach Scott Sandelin called an immediate time out, summoning goalie Isaac Reichmuth, the hero of the previous weekend against Minnesota, to join his teammates for a brief consultation at the bench.
“They came out jumping and we were flat,†said Sandelin. “There wasnÂ’t much I could say but to look up at the clock and tell them, ‘Well, weÂ’ve got 17:46 and two periods left.Â’ Ââ€
True, the fun had just begun. The Bulldogs settled down, and Tim StapletonÂ’s strong wrist shot beat Jordan Parise midway through the second period to cut UMDÂ’s deficit to 2-1. But five minutes later, Stafford pulled a power-play rebound free from a scrap at the net, spun and scored for a 3-1 Sioux lead.
In the third period, Stafford connected again with both teams short a man for a 4-1 lead. It was his seventh goal of the season, “and my first hat trick since I played at Shattuck,†he said, recalling his prep school days at Faribault, MN., his hometown.
That should have settled things, but Duluth rallied back when Jason Raymond scored on a UMD power play at 9:42, and when Sandelin pulled Reichmuth, Justin Williams scored with 1:31 remaining to thrust the Bulldogs to 4-3 proximity. When the game moved into its final minute, Reichmuth was pulled again and UMDÂ’s crowd was on its feet, urging the equalizer.
The Sioux defended firmly, then slick freshman T.J. Oshie got the puck out to center ice, and flipped a shot that was sliding slowly toward the unguarded UMD goal as the final seconds ticked off. Stafford was racing after it, and so was UMDÂ’s impressive freshman defenseman, Matt Niskanen. If Stafford could have gotten to the puck first, he could have converted his fourth goal of the night; if Niskanen could reach it, he could prevent an empty-net goal.
Everybody was watching the puck, as it slid toward the left post, but nobody could miss Niskanen – a former high school football star as well as hockey – take out Stafford with a pretty clean tackle. As the two slid to the end boards to the left of the goal, the puck did not go in, but struck the left pipe, and the ricochet trickled slowly into the crease.
Stafford and Niskanen, sprawled together at the end boards but still with distinctly differing motives, started to grapple. Referee Todd Anderson blew his whistle. After lengthy deliberation, he made what everybody in the press box agreed was a pretty unique decision.
He awarded a goal to Oshie, citing a rule that declares that when what appears to be an obvious goal at an empty net is prevented by a flagrant violation, a goal shall be awarded. So not only did Oshie get his fourth goal of the season at 19:58 of the third period, while Travis Zajac and Stafford were awarded assists on the awarded goal, and Niskanen and Stafford were penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct, still, confusion reigned in the press box.
To be accurate, the shot chart had to show Oshie’s shot hit the post and technically wasn’t a shot on goal. So you can award a goal, but can you award a shot on goal? The opinions wavered, but it was agreed that the best solution was to provide a trivia-quiz question – can you score a goal without a shot on goal?
Stafford wasnÂ’t upset that Niskanen had footballed him out of a chance for his fourth goal. Quite the contrary.
“Actually, I saw the puck sliding and I thought it was going to go in,†said Stafford. “So I hooked Niskanen, trying to hold him back, to let the puck go in.Ââ€
Very interesting. WeÂ’ll never know if Anderson missed StaffordÂ’s hook, or what that might have done to his subsequent call. What we do know is that the Fighting Sioux had snapped out of their scoring slump, led by the first line.
“Oshie is really something,†said Stafford. “Travis [Zajac] and I are hard-pressed to keep up with him. TJ is so tenacious that even if a defenseman getrs a piece of him, heÂ’ll just blow past him.Ââ€
Obviously, with a crop of freshmen that includes first-round NHL picks like Oshie, Brian Lee and Joe Finley, and second rounders Taylor Chorney and Andrew Kozek, the Sioux are bristling with flashy freshmen. So Stafford up front and fellow-junior Matt Smaby, the only defenseman older than a sophomore, are needed for leadership.
So what happens in Game 2? Smaby was tossed for checking from behind at the 5:37 mark of the first period, and Stafford was ejected for the same infraction at 0:20 of the second period. At that point, UMD led 2-0 on first-period power-play goals by Tim Stapleton and Mason Raymond.
{IMG2}
The freshman-dominated Sioux chose that time to rally. Zajac scored on a rebound at 3:53, Rastislav Spirko scored a power-play goal at 5:11, and Zajac connected again at 9:24 for a sudden 3-2 Sioux lead. UMD countered when Josh Meyers scored on the power play for a 3-3 tie at 12:40, but the rest of the middle period belonged to the Sioux.
Toews scored a spectacular goal on a power-play rush when Oshie fed a quick pass to send Chris Porter flying into the zone on the right, and when he got in deep, Porter looked to shoot but passed instead, right across the crease, where Jonathan Toews had easy work to shovel the puck in behind Reichmuth.
Porter also made a neat play to Oshie on a later power play, and the pass was so slick it isolated the freshman from Warroad, MN., who had the poise to step out for a better angle, then snap a wrist shot into the upper right corner. That completed a five-goal second period for the Fighting Sioux, and all was going their way when Ryan Duncan opened the third period with a 35-foot slap shot that ticked a defensemanÂ’s stickblade and changed vectors to catch the lower left corner for a 6-3 bulge.
Stapleton gamely got his second goal of the game and third of the weekend to close it to 6-4, but Duncan broke free up the right side and jammed a shot through Reichmuth that trickled across the line under a sprawling Justin Williams in the closing minutes.
If the sweep proved anything, it proved several things. First, that North Dakota is for real, whether its veterans or its youthful exuberance leads the way; second, that the Bulldogs need to find some three-period consistency to keep winning; third, that the WCHA is wide-open and every series is likely to provide surprises. And, oh yes, it is possible to score a goal without a shot on goal.
Mazda6 Sport Wagon zoom-zooms ahead into 2006
The 2006 Mazda6 Sport Wagon felt a little different when I test drove one last week, but it also felt comfortably familiar in the most important ways. With so many great midsize cars available the best thing about the Mazda6 is that getting back into one reassures the opinion that it can equal all the best features of any competitor – and runs away from them all when you add in the fun-to-drive factor.
Equipped with 18-inch alloy wheels and all-season Michelin tires, the front-wheel-drive Mazda6 breezed through the first little snowfall that swept across the Upper Midwest in the past week, never losing its poise even on icy patches of highway.
The Mazda6 is not up for Car of the Year for 2006. ItÂ’s not even a candidate, since itÂ’s in its fourth year since being totally redesigned for the 2002 model year, and has undergone only the sort of minor tweaks common to a carÂ’s model cycle. Trouble is, the Mazda6 didnÂ’t win back in the 2002 competition either, partly because it came out so late in the 2001 calendar year that many jurors didnÂ’t get any time with it. I voted for it then, and IÂ’d do it again today, only by a greater margin.
I often look back to reflect on how well past Car of the Year winners have sustained their importance. The best way to evaluate a car might be to measure how long it continues to be significant in the marketplace, and it would be difficult to imagine a more significant car than the Mazda6 when you look at its staying power.
It remains arguably the best-looking, best-handling, and best-performing midsize car out there when you put all the important characteristics up for consideration. When a car goes up against the likes of the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Jetta, and maybe a dozen others of that popular midsize, it requires quickness, comfort, good stability, and good looks.
The Mazda6 had all of those things, and the companyÂ’s executives apologized when it was introduced, for having lost their way in the worldwide attempt to copy the Accord/Camry whirlwind of durability and success. Mazda, a company with the most engineers per employee of any auto company, had matched the durability factor, but nobody could match the sales success Camry and Accord rack up, year after year.
Mazda added something special, though. The company promoted it as “zoom-zoom,†insisting the Mazda6 was the car that would return the company to its long-standing mission of building the most fun-to-drive vehicle in its class. To anyone who drove all the top cars in that class, there could be no argument that Mazda met its objective, with a redesigned suspension that kept the car firmly planted while the body stayed flat during the hardest cornering.
Many sports cars fell short of its sportiness, and you’d have to spend enough for a BMW 3-Series to find a worthy competitor – which was fitting, because the BMW was the benchmark Mazda’s suspension engineers used, while proving that a well-designed front-wheel-drive car can snake through curves with the best rear-wheel-drivers. The Mazda6 continued to prove and reprove itself with each passing year, and it still seems new and fresh, for 2006.
The station wagon is a more recent addition, and the Sport Wagon is newer still. Its nose is new, a little more dramatic in the “V†of the grille, and with a larger opening under the bumper, sort of RX-8 style. The glassed-in light enclosures now house four bulbs each, with standard halogen lights, and xenon headlights. As wagons go, this one looks sporty, with a roofline that tapers just a bit at the rear, finished with a spoiler on the back edge of the roof.
Station wagons themselves sort of faded from the scene when minivans became very popular, and then SUVs swept to prominence, without really dislodging minivans, but stopping their growth in market share.
Interestingly, wagons never went out of popularity in Europe, where BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, Volvo and Saab all sell station wagons in great number. They also are making a bit of a comeback in the U.S., where all of the above models, plus several from Japan, have worked their way back into our consciousness, simply for the logic and utility they offer.
So if the Mazda6 is the sportiest midsize sedan this side of BMW, then the Mazda6 Sport Wagon is a strong but less-expensive challenger for the best sporty wagons around from the prestigious European companies. The outstanding suspension feels even better on the new Sport Wagon, probably gaining an assist from the specifally larger 19-inch wheels, and stabilizer bars front and rear help as well.
I liked the interior of the Mazda6 when it was redesigned, but the 2006 Sport Wagon makes some alterations. The large round gauges are ringed subtly with silver, and come alive with a bright red-orange numbers and needles. The center stack is black, just a nice, simple, basic, black. Somehow it adds a classier touch than the somewhat swoopy mixtures of bright chrome and two-tone trim that seem to be growing in popularity.
{IMG2}
The seats, too, are basic but firmly supportive, and they were winter-friendly with the leather surface heated. The back seat is roomy enough for adults, and the storage area behind the seats is large, and gets larger if you fold down the second-row seats. A seven-speaker Bose audio system has a subwoofer and spews 200 watts of sound, and has as six-CD player in the dash. Safety also is stressed from the ground up, with side airbags and side air curtains standard. The climate control system has rear seat ducts, another nice touch as December approaches.
From a performance standpoint, of course, whatÂ’s under the hood matters greatly. In the Mazda6 sedan, the choice is the very strong 2.3-liter Mazda four-cylinder or a reworked version of the Ford Duratec 3.0-liter V6. Reworked is not just a buzzword here; in some Ford products the overhead-camshaft 3.0 V6 is adequate, but unexciting. When Ford gives the 3.0 to Mazda, the Mazda engineers rework it with variable valve-timing, and the same somewhat stodgy engine comes alive.
In the Sport Wagon, the 3.0 V6 is the only available engine. It has 215 horsepoewr at 6,300 RPMs and 199 foot-pounds of torque at 5,000 RPMs, and it runs just fine on regular gas – a feature not to be trifled with now that we know $3-per-gallon is not out of the question. The test car came with a five-speed manual transmission – setting the car firmly in the sporty bracket, although a six-speed automatic is available.
Along with strong engine performance, the Sport Wagon has standard four-wheel disc brakes, with antilock standard, and electronic brake distribution the car stops promptly and surely. When you want to go, the engine comes to life quickly, and the power goes to work through traction control, which prevents wheelspin and assures that takeoffs are sure and true, even in a snowstorm.
The sticker price for the Sport Wagon is $27,910, which becomes $28,470 with destination costs. If the 2006 Mazda6 was all-new, and not just the nearly perfected version of a well-established car, it would be right up there in the running with the newest Car of the Year candidates, such as the Ford Fusion. That proves how good the Mazda6 is. Ford is the chief investor in Mazda, and it shares more than just engines with its affiliate. The Fusion is built on the newest version of the Mazda6 platform, with a larger body, but its base engine is the Mazda 2.3-liter four, and the optional upgrade is the 3.0-liter V6 – Ford’s own Duratec V6, but done up by Mazda’s reworked heads with variable valve-timing.
The Fusion has a legitimate chance to win Car of the Year, and if it does, it will be a tribute to the Mazda6. Regardless, the 2006 Mazda6 commands complete respect on its own.
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