Fiat 500 more fun than bowl of jellybeans
Fiats will be sold in Minnesota at Luther's Brookdale Fiat, one of 130 separate U.S. facilities.
By John Gilbert
When you drive into the parking lot at, say, Rudy Luther’s Fiat in Brooklyn Park, you see about an acre of new Fiat 500 subcompacts, lined up in orderly lines so they won’t be mistaken for a gigantic bowlful of jellybeans. All the same shape, and all different colors.
Well, some are the same color, but with 14 colors available, there isn’t a lot of duplication. And an endless list of different graphics and striping packages can individualize any of the three Fiat 500 models. As I gazed down the row of new 500s at Brookdale Fiat, the claim of a half-million possible different color and graphics combinations seemed realistic. If everybody on your block bought a Fiat 500, it would be an amazing coincidence if two of them were identical.
Fiat, of course, would be very happy if everybody on your block bought a 500, which is the modern interpretation of the traditional Fiat Cinquecento. The timing is perfect, with Fiat taking over operation of Chrysler Group, and seizing the opportunity to return to the U.S. market by upgrading all Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep models, and also supplying the small car the Chrysler Group has lacked since abandoning the Neon — during which time small cars have become hugely popular.
I had a chance for a brief road test of various models at the introduction of the 500, and I appreciated a more recent invitation from Doreen Fischer, manager at Brookdale Fiat, located on Brooklyn Boulevard, just north of Interstate 694, and part of the Rudy Luther collection of dealerships. Luther’s also is operating a second Fiat outlet to be positioned in Bloomington, giving Minnesota two of the 130 U.S. dealerships — which Fiat calls “studios.†Fischer said her dealership opened April 1, and sold 21 cars in its first six weeks, long before it could build up the current supply of jellybeans.
The original Fiat Cinquecento hit the streets of Italy in 1957, a tiny little thing with rear-wheel drive that was an Italian answer to Germany’s Volkswagen Beetle. In 2009, after VW had brought back the Beetle and Mini Cooper the new Mini, Fiat decided to reconstruct its iconic small car. Making it more substantial and a bit larger, and with front-wheel drive, Fiat designers wanted to salvage the lines from the original car, notably the hood shape, windshield angle, and its angular slope to the rear.
The personalization of the 500 is an important element, according to Roberto Giolito, Head of Fiat Design, who said: “It is computer aided, but not designed by a computer. It was designed by people.â€
Among its 14 colors is the Italian red on the 500.
As the new owner of Chrysler Group, Fiat has wanted for years to return to the U.S. market, but never quite got it together. When General Motors and Chrysler needed U.S. government bailout loans to stay solvent a few years ago, the big headlines have been how GM has recovered, and how Ford has thrived without needing government help. Fiat’s takeover of the Chrysler Group — Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep — has been more subtle, but no less important.
Fiat’s redesign of all the interiors and most of the exteriors of all the Chrysler Brand vehicles for 2012 has gained justifiable praise, and Fiat has made an interesting maneuver to solve Chrysler’s lack of a small car with the Fiat 500. Curiously, perhaps, Fiat has insisted that separate that its dealers sell the 500 from separate facilities rather than being parked in a corner of a Dodge or Chrysler dealership. But make no mistake. “We are the small-car brand of Chrysler Group,†said Laura Soave, who is officially identified as the Head of Fiat Brand North America.
From the start, the car was planned to be international, with the United States one of its targets. The U.S. model has several variations from the European car, to meet more stringent safety tests and U.S. driving habits. Alterations include moving the high beams up to the main headlight enclosure, adding a modern automatic transmission, and such amenities as armrests, heated seats, cruise control, and electronic device connectivity, plus acoustic improvements to isolate engine vibration, and a new rear axle for improved ride and comfort.
Chief engineer Fabio DiMuro explained all the changes, and said: “The U.S. car came out so good, we would like to bring these features back to Europe.â€
The 500 comes in three versions for varying lifestyles. The Pop has a 5-speed manual shifter, seven airbags, and a starting price of $15,500. The Sport has a different fascia, firmer suspension settings and seats, 16-inch wheels, a starting price of $17,500, and the availability of a 6-speed automatic transmission with steering wheel paddle shifters, or the 5-sped stick. The Lounge is the top of the line, starting at $19,500, loaded up with all the features that are options on the other models, including the automatic. Some have sunroofs, and a slick-folding convertible is also available.
With the tachometer positioned inside the speedometer, also displayed was the July temperature of 109 in Minneapolis.
Fiat is aiming the 500 for an emotional connection with its owners, and if its ultra-cute styling doesn’t grab you, the interior might. A large panel of a smooth, exterior-colored panel cuts an impressive swath from left to right across the dashboard, and the instruments include a cleverly concentric speedometer outlined by the tachometer, with its second readout arrowhead and a digital speed listed in the center. Its surprisingly good performance and handling might surprise someone who hasn’t climbed inside such a well-designed subcompact recently.
The car’s light weight — 2,363 pounds for the stick and 2,434 for the automatic — means the small, 1.4-liter engine’s power pushes the 500 around very well, and amplifies the car’s agility. The actual numbers seem paltry, with only 101 horsepower, peaking at 6,500 RPMs, and 98 foot-pounds of torque, at 4,000 RPMs, but performance is better than the numbers imply and the 500 feels quick around town, and smooth while sustaining 70 or even 75 on a freeway trip. The 500 has enough high-strength steel and design reinforcements to become the first “A†segment car to attain five-star crash test ratings.
The reaction of other drivers on the freeway is interesting, because you can’t tell whether the slower vehicles you just passed have sped up and re-passed because they want a closer look at the Fiat, or whether it’s the usual American tendency to over-react to avoid feeling slighted by a subcompact zipping past so easily.
Some people recall the last Fiats that came into the U.S. There was the 124 roadster and coupe that were fun and fashionable, and the 128 subcompact that had front-wheel drive and performed quite well. For those who don’t think those mid-1960s Fiats were world-beaters, they need only to think back to the ill-handling and poorly coordinated but larger U.S. cars of that era. Since leaving the U.S. scene, Fiat’s expanding reach has taken over ownership of several other brands, including Ferrari and Alfa Romeo. It shares technology and engineering discussions with engineers from all its brands.
A perfect example is the 500‘s “MultiAir†engine, which uses technology that was patented by Fiat after being developed and then discussed with Ferrari’s Formula 1 engineers, and was then fully developed and patented by Fiat engineers. It goes beyond the sophistication of dual-overhead camshaft valve actuation.
MultiAir uses an electro-hydraulic system, with solenoids controlling oil pressure forced from the conventionally operated exhaust valves camshaft, to open and close the intake valves on a fully variable basis, depending on needs initiated by the driver. Instead of being dependent on an intake-valve camshaft, with MultiAir the intake valves can be advanced or delayed in accepting fuel-air mixture, providing a 50-percent increase in low-end torque, while also gaining a 10 percent increase in fuel efficiency and 10 percent reduction in CO2 exhaust emissions, compared to conventional engines.
We attained from 31 to 34 miles per gallon in various driving combinations, while Fiat claims 38 mpg for sustained freeway cruising with the manual transmission.
The future is indeed bright for the Fiat-Chrysler connection, because the MultiAir technique can be applied to any engine. In fact, Fiat has tested the 1.4 engine with the MultiAir system replacing both intake and exhaust valve camshafts, but found that applying the technique to the exhaust side had minimal added improvement, compared to the expense and complexity involved.
With room for four, the 500 has surprisingly good storage under the hatchback.
“In the 27 years Fiat has been out of the country, an amazing number of people have stories and memories keeping the name alive,†said Soave, during the car’s introductory session. “We are experts at making small cars, and in this era of diversity, we have a global icon with the 500. In America, the old philosophy is bigger is better. But whether it’s telephones or computers, everything keeps getting smaller. So we put all of the features of a large car into a smaller package. It’s not how big your car is, it’s how big your life is.â€
The small car market is expected to expand to 900,000 this year, and the best catch-phrase is that small cars are big these days. Among the dozens of small cars, only a few have a real personality. The Fiat 500 has personality aplenty, along with its Italian flair for style, and its performance and features make it an inexpensive way to drive off into the future.
Pass the jellybeans, please.
Blyleven earned overdue call to Hall
It was a pleasure to watch some of the television highlights put together to honor Bert Blyleven’s long-overdue entry into baseball’s Hall of Fame. It brought back some stirring memories of just how exceptional Blyleven was when he pitched for the Twins in two stretches, covering half of his 22-year Major League career.
Most of the highlights showed Blyleven’s mesmerizing curveball. The righthander would throw that pitch at considerable speed. If the batter was right-handed, he obviously had no interest in swinging at a pitch coming in just behind his shoulder blade. About the time the batter was deciding whether to hit the deck or simply bail out, the ball would start curving, and it would keep curving until it almost looked radar-controlled as it veered across the plate. Usually it would be a called strike, but in some cases a batter would stay with it, and venture a swing. And miss.
If the batter was left-handed, the highlights would show Blyleven firing the pitch in the same place, and the batter would understandably give up on a pitch that was a foot outside. But, sure enough, that amazing trajectory would guide the ball to curve in, invariably catching the outside corner, or maybe more, of the plate.
Everybody knows, or knew, that Blyleven had a deadly curve ball. Years before him, Camilo Pascual had the same sort of curve for the Twins when they first arrived in Minnesota. But the full sweep of Blyleven’s curve, and the greater velocity it carried, made it practically unhitable.
The part of the highlight show I enjoyed the most, however, was when it showed Blyleven throwing his fast ball. He had tremendous velocity on his fast ball, and as it approached the plate, it would sail, up and away to the right. Blyleven was interviewed while those pitches were being shown, and he said that while everybody talks about his curve ball, it was his fast ball that was his best pitch, because not only was it fast enough to blow past some of the best hitters in Major League ball at the time, but it meant those hitters had to be ready for it, and thus would be hopelessly overmatched by the curve.
Blyleven, who does a good job as color commentator on Twins Fox Sports North broadcasts, has been known for his outspoken hostility at the baseball writers who voted and prevented him from making the hall for 14 years. Now that he’s finally made it, he was extremely gracious and cordial in his remarks. However, he was absolutely correct in his first assessment — the writers were wrong, year after year, for not voting Blyleven in long ago.
True, he lost 250 games, while winning 287, but he was on some pretty poor teams during many of his 22 years. With the Twins from 1970-76, and then again after various trades brought him back in 1985, had a 149-138 record during those 11 years. But here are the most meaningful statistics that should have put Blyleven into the Hall years ago: He started 685 games and completed 242 of them; he is ninth among all pitchers in history with 60 shutouts; his 3,701 strikeouts rank him fifth among all pitchers in history.
In this era of pitch-count and specialization, how many of the current Twins pitchers will throw 242 complete games? If you guessed “None,†you’d be right on. How many current Twins pitchers will ever throw 60 shutouts? None, again. Realistically, then, nobody would argue if the top 10 pitchers in shutouts, or the top 10 in strikeouts, all were voted into the Hall of Fame. Blyleven qualifies on both counts, and has been sitting there ninth and fifth for all 14 years he had to wait before getting the call.
Speaking of the Twins, don’t you just love to listen to all the media experts who alternate between pulling hamstrings trying to leap onto the bandwagon, and getting flat feet when jumping off it? Time after time, this season. The Twins made a fantastic run up from the worst record in the Major Leagues to get within striking distance of the Central Division lead. Then they lost twice to Cleveland last week at home, and virtually everybody wrote them off all over again. So they won the next two, to split the four-game series, and everybody was back on the bandwagon. Next, Detroit came to Minneapolis and whipped the Twins twice, and while the Twins came back to win the third game, they lost the fourth, and again the naysayers threw in the towel.
Then it was off to Texas, where the Twins got humiliated 20-6 in a game that, hard to believe, wasn’t as close as the score indicated. Nick Blackburn gave up three in the first, three in the second, and three in the third. They turned the ball over to Jose Mijares, and he escaped the third but gave up five in the fourth. The classic was that Michael Cuddyer, who has moved in from the outfield to play infield when necessary, actually came in to save the beleaguered bullpen and threw a shutout inning — better than any Twins actual pitcher on Monday night.
That 20-6 blowout, of course, signaled the ultimate doomsaying throughout the radio and newspaper cynics in the Twin Cities. Game 2 of the series came around and the Twins, after blowing a 3-0 lead, fell behind 7-3, then improbably rallied dramatically to win 9-8. In the top of the ninth, the Twins caught fire on a pinch-hit double by Jim Thome and a crucial infield-chop single by much-maligned Japanese rookie Tsuyoshi Nishioka, which caught the Twins up at 8-8, setting the stage forJoe Mauer to come off the bench for a 3-2 line drive double to left center to win the game. Joe Nathan closed it with a strong last of the ninth.
The point is, losing a couple games and then winning a couple games was impressive, and coming back from a 20-6 rout for a thrilling 9-8 victory — followed by another victory and then a loss for a four-game split in Texas — has to confuse the bandwagon jumpers. Perhaps the Twins dug themselves too deep a hole to win the pennant, but they have made a fantastic bid to get back into it, and in a 162-game season, it’s absurd for even self-appointed experts to read the scope of the whole season into a bad game or two, or 10. True, the Twins didn’t match up too well against Cleveland and Detroit, and Texas, but those three are among the best teams in the American League this season, and the Twins were 5-7 in the 12-game killer drill against them. Had they pulled out one move victory, they’d have been 6-6. And if they get on a roll, they indeed could catch up.
And if they don’t? Well, we can all just tune out the “experts” and enjoy the quite remarkable entertainment value each game contains. And remember, the Twins already have a better winning percentage than all the naysayers and bandwagon jumpers combined.
WCHA races ahead into unknown
For over 60 years, the Western Collegiate Hockey Association resembled a perfectly-tuned race car, speeding ahead of the pack with efficient precision, while compiling an impressive number of national championships that overwhelm all other college hockey leagues combined. The fact that UMD could rise up from a sputtering fourth-place finish in the WCHA to win its first NCAA title in 2011 is further evidence of the league’s domination.
Then came the Summer of 2011, and some WCHA member schools have willingly chosen to turn off the track in a new direction, swerving down two different avenues, which will either be wildly successful for themselves, or devastatingly harmful for college hockey. Or both.
And UMD is right in the middle of the turmoil.
College hockey interest is intense in Northern Minnesota, and has been cultivated for more than a full generation or two. The pinnacle came in April of 2011 when the UMD Bulldogs won the first NCAA Division 1 men’s hockey championship by any Minnesota team not named Gophers.
Hockey fans all have taken great pride in the WCHA, knowing it is the best college hockey league in the nation — not “one of the best,†as the ill-informed outsiders of the Duluth News-Tribune’s editorial board claimed. Despite defections and revisions over 60 years, the WCHA retained its lofty stature, with UMD becoming part of it. The WCHA will continue to be the best NCAA Division 1 hockey league, untouched, for the next two seasons. And then — the WCHA will be blown to bits.
The WCHA used to encompass all college hockey programs from Michigan west. It totally dominated through the 1970s, survived a major shakeup when Michigan led a withdrawal that also lured Michigan State, Michigan Tech and Northern Michigan out of the WCHA, in order to start the Central Collegiate Hockey Association. Teams have come and gone, but the status of the WCHA remained.
Flash forward, and status quo remains for the next two seasons, keeping intact all the colorful rivalries UMD, for example, enjoys with Minnesota, St. Cloud State, Michigan Tech, Bemidji State, North Dakota and the rest of the WCHA. But when hockey starts in the fall of 2013, the league will scatter in three different directions. Solid rivals UMD, Minnesota, and St. Cloud State will all be in different leagues — maybe still playing each other in nonconference games, which will have greatly reduced intensity; maybe not playing at all.
Reality followed rumors that the five current Big Ten teams currently in either the WCHA and CCHA would be joined by a startup program at Penn State, creating a new Big Ten hockey conference. It’s ironic that Michigan is pushing for the Big Ten rivalries, because Michigan kissed off those same heated rivalries with Minnesota and Wisconsin when it left the WCHA.
The reason for reuniting as a Big Ten hockey league may appear to be strictly for potential television revenue, because the Big Ten Network is doing right well broadcasting football and basketball every Saturday, but it would like something to broadcast on Friday nights, too. Hockey fills that bill, although we could make a bet that when Saturdays roll around, how many lousy Big Ten basketball games will ever be bounced off the air to show a great Big Ten hockey game.
Less understood is that the Big Ten strongly urges that any time as many as six Big Ten universities are involved in a sport, they should align in a Big Ten Conference in that sport. When Penn State announced it was starting a hockey program for both men and women, the Nittany Lions became the sixth Big Ten team with hockey. Minnesota, in fact, voted against the concept of a Big Ten hockey league, but had no real choice.
Two years from now, Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the WCHA, and Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State leave the CCHA, joining up with Penn State for a six-team Big Ten league. Four of the six — Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan State — have all been members of the NCAA hockey elite, but in reality, Minnesota and Michigan State have slipped over the last few years. A mass of early pro signings that included five underclassmen on defense caused a temporary slip by Wisconsin this past season, but we can assume Wisconsin will rise back to its previous stature. Questions continue to plague Minnesota and Michigan State returning to elite level. Regardless, Michigan is the only Big Ten school that has remained consistently elite. So the Big Ten hockey league won’t necessarily be an instant member of college hockey’s elite class.
Without Minnesota and Wisconsin two years from now, the WCHA could easily have retained its position as the best league in the nation. North Dakota has stayed at the elite level, and Denver has nearly matched the Fighting Sioux. Colorado College is usually there, and now Nebraska-Omaha has surged up to that status. UMD has risen to that level at least for the present, while St. Cloud State and Bemidji State are close behind, and Minnesota State-Mankato, Alaska-Anchorage and Michigan Tech hope to rise.
Right after the Big Ten formation became official, North Dakota seemed to panic a bit, wondering if its position as the No. 1 program in all of college hockey would hold up if the WCHA slipped in  stature by the Big Ten departures. Officials in Grand Forks overlooked the fact that North Dakota could be the lynchpin in assuring the WCHA’s continued prominence, and started examining alternatives to staying in the WCHA. They decided to start a new league, and Denver, CC, and Nebraska-Omaha jumped on board, which led to UMD trying to join, too. Forming a “super†league that would also include Miami of Ohio and, they hope, Notre Dame, became reality. UMD pursued the group and got on board, too. Officially, it will be called the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC).
NCHC teams all are claiming to be looking at the big picture, when in reality that may be their major shortcoming. In their zeal for me-too prominence, nobody seems to care a whit about what would remain as the WCHA, or about the future of NCAA hockey.
UMD, which has been striving for elite status for 50 years, and attained it for a few years in the mid-1980s, now has finally reached its peak by winning its first NCAA championship in men’s hockey this past April. We can only wonder how eager the other defecting WCHA powers, like North Dakota and Denver, would have been to welcome UMD if the Bulldogs hadn’t won their new title. A championship, even a fantastic championship, following a fourth-place finish, hardly chisels a team’s name into the elite category.
Certainly, St. Cloud State, Mankato, Bemidji State, Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan, Lake Superior State, the two Alaskas, Western Michigan, and Ferris State are far from rejects staying behind. While the Big Ten arrogantly says its winner will get an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, so would the NCHC teams, and so will the collection of remaining western teams, whether they call it the WCHA or whatever. And who’s to say the winner of the remaining WCHA wouldn’t be just as good as the NCHC or Big Ten champ in any given year?
College hockey programs don’t seem to realize that with so few teams playing the sport, they are fortunate the NCAA allows them to have a national tournament. It’s also fortunate that the NCAA hockey tournament has become such a major financial success that the “show me the money†lads at the NCAA definitely won’t want to lose it. But some of these programs left behind by the new elite leagues might decide that it’s not worth the expense to keep playing, and if a few schools drop their programs, the future of the NCAA hockey tournament could indeed be jeopardized.
There is one other matter the new leagues haven’t considered. Eastern college hockey teams are clustered in either the ECAC or Hockey East, both of which have elite teams, middle teams, and poor teams, revolving to some extent with the roller-coasters of recruiting and returning crops. So does the WCHA and CCHA. A major reason why the top teams are the best is reflected in their records of usually beating the middle teams, and almost always beating the bottom ones.
Now that the NCHC has isolated six very strong programs, guess what? No matter how good all league teams might be, a couple will have good records up on top, a couple more will be about .500, and a couple others will have poor records at the bottom. A team such as UMD, or Colorado College, or any other in the NCHC, could be one of the 10 best teams in the country, and still finish 5-15 and at the bottom of the NCHC. Will an elite team in an elite league still be considered elite if it goes 5-15 against other elite teams in that league? More than that, a 5-15 team in the NCHC might be stronger than a St. Cloud State or Bemidji State that goes 16-4 to win what’s left of the WCHA, but will the NCAA selection computers discern that quality difference?
Last season, North Dakota, UMD, Nebraska-Omaha, Denver, Colorado College, and Miami of Ohio all were selected for the NCAA’s 16-team tournament field. Those six are all making up the NCHC. But when they all play each other in the same new league, without lowlier teams to fatten their records against, three or four of those teams might be bypassed for teams that aren’t as strong but have better records in less-elite leagues.
I’ve always thought that college hockey programs should be more focused on expanding rather than isolating top teams. They should actively campaign to get programs established at North Dakota State, maybe Minnesota State-Moorhead, which is interested in going D1, plus Washington, Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State, to begin with, and then head on down to some California colleges, Arizona State maybe, and even Montana and Wyoming. Minor league pro and/or Major junior hockey has given the sport a base in Seattle, Spokane, Portland and other cities in the Northwest, so college hockey could be easily established. Think what a great league it would be to have Denver, CC, the two Alaska-Anchorage, Alaska-Fairbanks, Washington, Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State combined into a competitive league, with more teams trying to get in.
Without that, and without the sly and possibly sinister way of abandoning honest and worthy rivalries in the WCHA, let’s look at what cooler heads might have sought:
Imagine keeping the WCHA and CCHA intact as they are, and arranging the schedules so that the Big Ten schools stay where they are right now, but all play each other in nonconference games, and then keeping a separate Big Ten standing. A team like Minnesota or Wisconsin could finish fourth or fifth in the WCHA, and still be the Big Ten champion. At playoff time, if they insist, the Big Ten teams could go off into their own Big Ten tournament for a playoff, and seek their own seeding for NCAA tournament entry.
Another scenario might have sent the Big Ten teams off to their own conference, while the remainder of the WCHA and CCHA could get together and form a new truly super league, with two 9-team divisions, and minimal disruption. The Eastern half might include, say, UMD, Bemidji State, Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan, Lake Superior State, Western Michigan, Miami of Ohio, Ferris State, and Notre Dame; the Western half would be North Dakota, St. Cloud State, MSU-Mankato, Nebraska-Omaha, Denver, CC, the two Alaskas, and maybe Air Force Academy. The leagues could play interlocking, with either two or four games each against teams in their own division, and two each against teams from the other division.
Those would be full schedules, which might not leave room to play any of the departed Big Ten teams. Someone from Minnesota scoffed at that, saying all the other teams would still clamor to play the Gophers, proving that arrogance can remain even as quality dissipates. If might be good for Minnesota to learn that, never mind the size and self-absorbed prestige of Big Ten rivals, it will be a lot tougher to fill Mariucci Arena for Ohio State, Penn State and even Michigan State than for UMD, St. Cloud State or North Dakota. And when the Western division fills the centrally located Xcel Center, or large rinks in Omaha, Grand Forks, or Denver for its playoff, and the Eastern half does the same in Detroit, the Big Ten has chosen a higher-seed site for playoffs, which could leave its playoff final in 6,000-seat Yost Fieldhouse in Ann Arbor.
The idea of UMD joining North Dakota in starting their own super NCHC might seem exciting and promising short-term, and every regular season game in the new league will be exciting. But I worry most about the programs being left behind. Whatever transpires, the next two seasons of status-quo WCHA play should be very interesting, as well as highly competitive. The current rivalries might definitely intensify when the self-appointed “elite†teams take on the “castoffs†they’re leaving behind.
Two years from now, that efficient and precise race car speeding down the track, wearing WCHA colors, will change abruptly. The wheels will come off, it might spin out, and it could crash into a wall. If so, that impending crash would have to be attributed to “Driver error.”
2012 Boss 302 pays tribute to 1970 icon
Exterior graphics tell only part of the story of the technical upgrades in the 2012 Boss 302.
By John Gilbert
There was a little deja vu when the 2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 first appeared for a one-lap test drive. We were gathered at the spring Midwest Auto Media Association (MAMA) Rally at Road America in Elkhart Lake, Wis., and among the gathered cars for media hot laps was a glistening white Mustang Boss 302. It was particularly glistening because a torrential downpour hammered the area all day. But it didn’t matter. Even driving moderately to keep the high-powered Mustang under strict rein, it was a thrill.
A month later, the very same Mustang — white with its bold black identifying stripes — was delivered to Minneapolis for a week-long test-drive to the North Shore area of Lake Superior, and the weather was fantastic. So was the car.
Ford took its already-strong and still new dual-overhead-camshaft 5.0-liter V8 from the normal Mustang and thoroughly reworked it internally, refining valves, intake and exhaust ports, camshafts, crankshaft, and even the oil pan. Virtually all parts are lighter and stronger for increased capacity against an anticipated increased load. The 5.0 delivers 402 horsepower standard, and 412 in GT form, while the Boss 302 turns out 444 horsepower, with 380 foot-pounds of torque. The added power is easily managed with a 6-speed manual shifter, a short-throw, smooth-shifting gem.
The Boss 302’s price was $42,990, including the heavy-duty MT82 manual transmission, and the Torsen limited-slip differential, plus real Recaro sports bucket seats, in cloth, but it did not come with the widely publicized Sync system that gives almost all new Ford products amazing electronic connectivity. No such voice control, no navigation system, or satellite radio, and I couldn’t coax my iPod to function, either. Apparently it’s assumed that anyone choosing such a strong performer would know where they’re going and wouldn’t appreciate any electronic distractions.
Together with some serious suspension upgrades, including the ability to adjust the shock absorbers for firmer suspension, there are some really special features. My son, Jack, looked underneath the car and noticed two complete sets of dual exhaust pipes.
Blacked-out rear facade finish near-perfect design of the near-perfect Mustang.
The secondary pipes cut off near the wheel-wells, and they handle overflowing exhaust, although if the owner wanted to go out to the sort of “track day†opportunities most road-racing tracks now offer, it would be probably be pretty easy to redirect the exhaust for added straight-through power. Such track-day performance also could make best use of the firmer shock settings, and the speed-sensitive electric steering can be set for easy to more resistant wheel feel.
As it stands, the new Boss 302 runs swiftly, handles exceptionally well, stops abruptly, and definitely lives up to its heritage. Good thing, too, because the name Boss 302 demands exceptional performance.
In its never-ending pursuit to keep its pony-car ahead of the herd, Ford has added Mustang models on a nearly annual basis recently, from assorted Shelby and GT models, to specialty models such as the Bullitt, named after the movie of the same name, which included legendary chase scenes in which Steve McQueen raced through the streets of San Francisco. Ford has been able to continue the specific, if subtle, special editions to keep the Mustang current, not missing a beat since its 1964 origin.
But the Boss 302 signals the heritage of truly high-performance Trans-Am racing Mustangs. Built only in 1969 and 1970, the Boss 302s became a company icon, right up there with the LeMans-winning GT-40, and was the closest to a race car Ford ever made in a mainstream vehicle.
Ford’s impressive job building the latest Mustang, with its new DOHC V6, and its all-new 5.0 DOHC V8, made it pretty certain the Boss would connect the dots. There is a lot of the old exhilaration every time you punch the throttle, shift the gears, or zip around a tight curve without wavering from the flat and stable attitude. I’m ready for the red key.
In the late 1960s, pony-cars were a breakthrough for American cars. The “bigger is better†mentality had filled our driveways with large cars that were, pretty much, tanks. Midsize cars were better, but the world of performance cars changed completely with the first Mustang in 1964. It was an immediate classic — lightweight, with a long hood, short rear deck, 2-plus-2 seating, and either a mild but economical 6 or a hot but small V8. Chevrolet followed with the Camaro, Chrysler with the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda, Pontiac had the Firebird, and even American Motors got into the act, with the Javeliln. All were similar in size, shape and purpose. And all of them went Trans-Am racing. They were pony-cars, light and agile ponies alongside the midsize horses or full-size plow-horses.
Covering auto racing in those days included the Sports Car Club of America’s Trans-Am series, one of the most exciting, closely contested road-racing series ever concocted, much closer to true street machinery than something like NASCAR is today. Everybody was in it. Roger Penske, and his engineer-driver Mark Donohue, led the Camaro attack, while the Dodge Challenger had Sam Posey behind the wheel, and Plymouth’s Barracuda had Swede Savage driving for Dan Gurney. Bud Moore ran the Mustang team, with the legendary Parnelli Jones and George Follmer as drivers.
All the Mustang needed was a new and more potent engine beyond the outgunned 260 and 289 V8s, and Ford engineers created a masterpiece — a 5-liter, 302 cubic inch V8, with forged steel crankshaft, four-bolt main bearings, solid valve lifters, a deep-set oilpan, special short-skirted pistons and special valves. It was about as good as a pushrod engine could be, advertising 290 “wink-wink†horsepower. It was a 3,000-pound car, and anything with more than one horsepower to 100 pounds called for an insurance hit. So Ford understated its power, despite dyno tests showing the engine closer to 320 or 330 horsepower.
The 1969 Boss 302 was very good, with its quad headlights, narrow grille and three-sided rectangular side stripes, but the 1970 was an excellent update, with a bolder stance, larger single headlights, and the more distinctive side stripe. Parnelli Jones challenged Donohue’s Camaro in 1969, then won the 1970 championship with a remarkable display of driving skill, and an exceptional car.
The 2012 Boss 302 flashed me back to early summer of 1970. I had tested all the pony cars, and we made a family decision to buy one. I liked the Camaro, and the Challenger, and I really liked the looks of the Barracuda, but in objective analysis, the Mustang Boss 302 stood apart, as tight as the Camaro, with the most sophisticated and impressively refined balance of power and agility. It cost a staggering — at the time — $5,000. I hustled down to the Saint Paul Ford plant to help unload the brand new 1970 Ford Boss 302 Mustang from the rail car that brought it from Detroit. The urgency was partly because it was the first and only car I ever ordered factory-direct.
A bigger reason was that my wife, Joan, son Jack, and I, were departing the next day on an epic vacation trip. With a lightweight fold-down tent trailer, our plan was to hook it up to the Boss and drive directly to Toronto, where I would write about the season’s first Can-Am race at Mosport Park. Next, we would drive and camp over the following week, reaching Long Island in time for a Trans-Am race at Bridgehampton. Then, with another week to go, we would drive north into Quebec, camping in the Laurentian Mountains until the weekend, when I would cover the next Can-Am race, at St. Jovite.
It was an awesome trip, with indelible memories for all of us. The Boss 302 was medium blue, with that black stripe angling down behind the front wheel-wells and then shooting straight back, shaped like an enlarged hockey stick. The black stripe was a 3M glass-bead marvel, because when light hit it, it reflected white, bright as a highway sign.
The next year, 1971, Ford redid the Mustang, making it a foot longer, and offered a “Boss 351†with similar revisions to its Cleveland 351 cubic inch engine. It had more power, on paper, and George Montgomery, who built Donnybrooke Speedway in Brainerd as his own high-speed dream, bought a black one, partly because he liked my Boss 302 so much. At a race that year, Montgomery had his public address announcer say that he and I would run a match race during the noon lunch-break. My car needed a tune-up, and I was worried about being outgunned, but not only did my Boss 302 beat his new Boss 351, but I was still in third gear at the end of the quarter-mile.
We owned the car through a couple of accident-induced revisions, and finally sold it 30 years later. Technology had overtaken the original Boss 302’s whistling, high-revving pushrod engine design. The new 5.0-liter Ford engine with dual overhead camshafts, variable valve-timing, and all the other latest technology parts, sets a new standard. And revising it to form the new Boss 302 is a superb example of an All-American pony car, with future-retro styling that honors its 1970 model heritage.
The new Boss 302 most resembles the 1970 Boss, although its side graphics mimic the 1969 stripes.
The new car’s exterior design graphics are my only complaint. The base Mustang V6 has large single headlights, while the GT has four headlights, and while they are large, they are positioned one outside and one inside the grille on either side — making the GT look a lot like the 1969 Mustang, and its 1969 Boss 302 spinoff. In 1970, the Boss 302‘s improvements were set off by an exterior featuring larger single headlights, a bold grille, a blacked-out rear end, and the hockey-stick-on-its-side-shape side graphics.
The 2012 Boss 302 has been refined to differentiate from the GT by its large single headlights and grille, and blacked-out rear panel, which makes it look about as different as the 1970 did from the 1969. The side graphics come in various color combinations, all of them striking, and are virtually identical to the horseshoe-on-its-side 1969 Boss, even though the new car is a stunning replica of the 1970 Boss 302. So But the new Boss 302 mimics the 1970’s appearance, with graphics identical to the 1969. Ford needs to bring back one design consultant to oversee such things, old enough to appreciate the heritage of such a true company icon.
The new car will blaze its own contemporary trail. It even comes with two ignition keys, one silver the other red. The silver one makes the car work perfectly; the red one is for those track days or other high-performance desires, because merely inserting it and turning on the Boss 302 also adjusts all the electronic settings for all systems to be on high-performance. The test car I got had only the silver key. Oh, darn. Guess I’ll have to try to get it for another week.
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