Miracle makes good movie, but better in real life
The movie “Miracle†has been unanimously acclaimed as the best and most comprehensive attempt to recapture Team USA’s miraculous victory over the Soviet Union during its 1980 gold-medal performance at Lake Placid. The movie takes on eerie extra importance, especially for Minnesotans, because its release followed by only six months the sudden and tragic death of coach Herb Brooks in a rollover freeway accident. Brooks and 12 of his players were from Minnesota.
Everybody who was alive in 1980 remembers where they were on that day in February when Team USA upset the Soviet Union 4-3 in the Winter Olympics. For me, itÂ’s easy; I was in the press box at the arena in Lake Placid. Having chronicled the team since it was put together at the National Sports Festival in Colorado Springs in the summer of 1979, and through its home exhibition base at Met Sports Center in Bloomington, I eagerly anticipated the new movie.
It was ironic that the movie about the greatest sports achievement in U.S. history wound up being recreated in Vancouver, because a huge part of the mystique of what Brooks accomplished was to help extricate the U.S. from the smothering domination Canada has had on American hockey development. It’s Canada’s game, but Canadians long have failed to acknowledge any variations from their style of up-and-down, NHL style of play, whether those variations came from Russia, Sweden, Finland – and especially the U.S. To Canada, the U.S. has mostly been the primary source for monetary support for Canadian professional players and administrators, and certainly not the source of a wellspring of fresh, new hockey ideas.
Still, Canada adopted the magical USA ride in 1980, so there was hope that Miracle would avoid the pitfalls that have plagued whatever movies, television specials and books have been made on the subject. It did overcome most of them, while telling the story with realistic performances and gripping drama.
Kurt Russell is excellent as Brooks. He inserted himself into the only Brooks he came to know, a reflective 66-year-old with glasses, and he captured the mannerisms, facial expressions, the walk, and the speech patterns — except where he says “You OK wid dat?” and slips from Eastside St. Paul into Brooklynese. But the Brooks Russell came to know was 66, not the impulsive, 42-year-old fireball that orchestrated the miracle. Patricia Clarkson plays Patti Brooks as a perky but almost-Stepford-Wife type, which completely misses PattiÂ’s sarcastic wit, which always offset HerbieÂ’s seriousness. In real life, Patti never criticized Herbie’s devotion to hockey, but created her own parallel universe in which to raise son Danny and daughter Kelly.
Real hockey players, some of them Minnesotans, skate and portray the players, which adds considerable realism, although I would have insisted on using real-game footage for some elements. Nobody, for example, comes close to the beautiful long strides of Rochester’s Eric Strobel, to say nothing of Soviet stars like Valery Kharlamov, who was a quicker Wayne Gretzky before Gretzky arrived on the hockey scene. Billy Schneider portrays his dad, Buzzy Schneider, even though he can’t duplicate the hasty, staccato strides of the tough, lanky Babbitt Rabbit,†who played for Brooks at the University of Minnesota as well as on the ’80 team.
The filmÂ’s creators never seem to grasp the circling style Brooks distilled from the Europeans, and the movie demonstrates both the U.S. team and European foes skating in the contemporary up-and-down Canadian/NHL style, universal in Canada. It would have been laudable to insert actual game footage of both the spectacular Soviets against the U.S. college kids, both in their pre-Olympic meeting, and when it mattered — when the U.S. kids proved they could defuse the Soviet style and ultimately improvise better than the masters.
Make no mistake, the Soviet team that Brooks’s Team USA defeated was the most-skilled hockey team ever assembled. One year earlier, virtually the same Soviet team engaged the best NHL all-stars, coached by Scotty Bowman, and crushed the NHLers 6-0 in a spectacular display of hockey brilliance in the deciding game of a three-game series at Madison Square Garden.
Miracle may have lost some realism by failing to capture the skill and style of the Soviets — and the U.S. team — but it definitely didnÂ’t miss the intensity of the teamÂ’s preparation. When Brooks skated the players through repeated “Herbies,†the movie portrays them, except to allow the players to sprint from line to line instead of to each line and all the way back to the end of the rink in flat-out intervals. They also turn in either direction instead of facing the same way, a Brooks-enforced trick so theyÂ’d turn both ways equally over the course of the full drill, instead of to their preferred strong side.
Brooks selected 12 Minnesotans on his final 20-man team – nine of them Gophers – along with two from Wisconsin, two from Michigan and four from Boston University. He diverted attention from the dominant Minnesota concept so successfully that every retelling of the tale has overlooked the Minnesota input to focus on BU teammates Jim Craig, the goalie, and Mike Eruzione, the captain who scored the game-winner in the 4-3 victory over the Soviet powerhouse. Miracle does more of the same, and adds another BU player, Jack O’Callahan, into the third most-prominent role.
Credit it to “Minnesota nice†that the dozen Minnesotans never complain about being slighted, and are satisfied to have been part of the team. They still exchange a few barbs, though, such as when the ’80 team members saw the first screening of Miracle in Los Angeles, and one of the Minnesotans suggested to the group that a sequel could be called “Miracle West,†in order to mention that some non-BU guys played, too. The importance of Mark Pavelich of Eveleth or Mark Johnson of the University of Wisconsin, the clear catalysts of the offense, would be worthy of character development. The Conehead Line, also called the Iron Range Line, with Pavelich centering Schneider and John Harrington of Virginia, was the prominent U.S. line throughout the Olympics, but we learn nothing about any of them. Again.
Pavelich, an improvisational genius who had teamed with Harrington on some great UMD teams through 1979, had a goal and five assists in the seven Olympic games, with almost every point a pivotal one, such as the set-ups on the last-minute tying goal by Billy Baker against Sweden, and to Eruzione for the famous goal to beat the Russians. Wisconsin’s Mark Johnson, who suffered in silence with a heavily taped shoulder injury through most of the Olympics, scored 5-5—10, with two of his goals against the Soviets, plus a goal and an assist in the three-goal, third-period rally of the 4-2 gold-medal-clinching game against Finland.
“The movie ended up three hours long, so they had to cut out nearly an hour of it,†said Harrington, the former UMD star who now coaches St. JohnÂ’s University. “The first time I saw it, I picked at the things that were wrong. But I went back and watched it again, just as a movie, and it does a great job of telling a motivational story about a group of guys accomplishing a seemingly impossible task.Ââ€
It is a well-crafted movie, but it seems curious to alter some nuggets to less-compelling fiction, either for “dramatic effect or because of faulty memories. For example, Brooks closely scrutinized a four-team round-robin tournament at the National Sports Festival, in which everybody played three games, then a semifinal and bronze and gold finals. He pretended to allow input from numerous scouts and coaches that had been assembled, although he kept his own private list for picking the 28-man roster he named at nearly midnight after the “gold medal†game. The movie goes to length to stress that Brooks arrogantly picked his team before the week-long tournament, implying that the fiercely-played games weren’t necessary and maybe didn’t even occur.
Lou Nanne might be miffed that the actor portraying him is a slippery little guy. My theory is it might be a last laugh for Brooks. If he had any influence on the casting, the image remains of Brooks now looking down on the proceedings and chuckling at the final zinger inflicted on his long-time buddy.
The fiery OÂ’Callahan is shown venting left-over hatred for the Gophers who had beaten his Boston University in a brawl-filled NCAA tournament semifinal at Denver in 1976. OÂ’Callahan singles out ex-Gopher Rob McClanahan for having robbed him of the trophy, and blasts McClanahan with a bodycheck followed by an early practice fight. “O-C supposedly hated Robbie, but they never had that fight,†said Strobel. “Think about it: Robbie was a senior at Mounds View High School in 1976.Ââ€
Impromptu football games in the snow are neat, but fiction. In reality, Pavelich frequently led his teammates out to some outdoor Twin Cities ice for pickup games, even after long practices. They were rink-rats, and those pickup games may have been more unifying than any late-night skating drills or phony practice fights. “We always played using a tennis ball,†recalled Strobel. “I remember being at some rink in Hopkins, spending the whole time trying to take that tennis ball away from Pav. It was impossible.Ââ€
The movie extends the common belief that Brooks carefully plotted for his players to hate him in order to create unity. He was tough on them in his quest for total discipline under fire, as well as conditioning, and when the players gritted their teeth in their determination to show Brooks they could rise to his challenges, it might have evolved to something perceived as hatred. But it certainly wasn’t that Brooks wanted the players to hate him. Brooks created similar “us against the world†scenarios on every team he coached, but there was never any doubt Brooks was part of – and the leader of – the “us†faction.
The mind-games and psyche-jobs are valid, as Brooks deployed them to keep his team alert and ready for anything. Brooks always relied on catch-phrases and barked his “Brooksisms†so repetitively that Harrington logged them in a notebook. The movie shows a softer, emotional side of Brooks, but makes him view everything too seriously. In reality, he heckled himself for recycling some of his favorite phrases and tactics, and sympathized during the Olympic games about how players like Schneider, Strobel, Duluth’s Phil Verchota, Billy Baker from Grand Rapids, McClanahan from Mounds View, Richfield’s Steve Christoff, and Steve Janaszak of Hill-Murray, who had played three or four years for his Gopher teams before making the Olympic outfit. “They must be sick of hearing me by now,†he said.
As for the exhausting post-game skating drills in Norway, following a lackluster exhibition tie in Norway, Brooks indeed enforced endless Herbies. “The guys from Boston, Michigan, Wisconsin and UMD must have thought Herbie was nuts,†said Strobel. “But to me, and to the rest of the Gophers who had played for Herbie, it wasnÂ’t anything we werenÂ’t used to.Ââ€
Highlights of the film include Brooks agonizing over cutting Ralph Cox as the 21st player, and pondering whether to keep or replace Eruzione with high-scoring Gopher Tim Harrer right before the Olympics. Those are valid. But the four BU players accosting Brooks about it in the corridor works on the silver screen, when actually the whole team, in the dressing room, made it clear they thought Brooks should stick with the unity he had created.
Brooks kept OÂ’Callahan on the team even after he strained his knee ligaments in a 10-3 drubbing administered by the Soviets in an exhibition game at Madison Square Garden right before the Olympics. OÂ’Callahan makes a dramatic and heavy-hitting return in the Soviet medal-round game in the movie; in real life, he reappeared two games earlier. You could look it up: He assisted on a Christoff power-play goal in the game against Romania, but played only a few scarce shifts the rest of the way, including the Soviet game.
In the Olympics, everyone contributed. Schneider and McClanahan joined Johnson as goal-scoring leaders with five goals each, while Verchota matched Eruzione’s three goals. Gophers Neal Broten of Roseau and Steve Christoff, BU’s Dave Silk and Bowling Green’s Mark Wells scored two goals each, and Baker, Strobel and Morrow got one apiece. With O’Callahan virtually on one leg, Brooks primarily went with four defensemen – Ken Morrow and 20-year-old Gopher Mike Ramsey on one unit, Baker and David Christian from Warroad on the other, with Bob Suter of Madison, Wis., swinging in. Their characters were never developed, including the amazing one-year conversion to defense of Christian, who was a center at Warroad and the University of North Dakota before the Olympic year, and for a long NHL career afterward. Plus, his dad, Billy Christian, and uncle Roger Christian were stars on the 1960 U.S. gold medal team.
At the Olympics, Brooks did indeed jump McClanahan as a prima donna from the wealthy Twin Cities suburb of North Oaks when a painful leg bruise knocked him out in the first period of the opening 2-2 tie against Sweden. The obvious effect it had to startle the team to attention didn’t, however, require the movie version to have Brooks boast “That’ll get ’em going!†as he left the dressing room. In reality, the move inspired McLanahan to leap off the training table and chase Brooks into the hallway in a shouting match that made the wide-eyed Swedish team inadvertent witnesses.
The depiction of Brooks offering inane answers at post-game press conferences in a tiny room was also silly when it could have been a dramatic nugget. Actually, after two games, Brooks announced he would boycott the press conferences, which were held in a huge, high school auditorium across an entryway from the arena. New York columnist Mike Lupica had ripped Brooks for not bringing players for interviews because he wanted all the attention for himself. Brooks had never met nor spoken to Lupica, and he called him out from the podium at the next press conference, then announced that to prove his move wasn’t for personal attention, assistant coach Craig Patrick would be coming to subsequent press conferences instead. He also said the media wasnÂ’t allowed to talk to his players on game-day any more. In the movie, that whole flap is altered to a journalist asking Brooks politely if not bringing players was for self-gratification, and he cordially answers, “No, Mike…”
Eruzione has often retold the story that before the final period of the final game, Brooks came into the dressing room and said if the U.S. couldn’t rally to erase a 2-1 deficit and beat Finland, the players would “take it to your grave; to your (bleeping) grave.†Strobel said he remembers that comment being at practice on the day between the Soviet and Finland games. Going back to my notes and the story I wrote in the Minneapolis Tribune after the game against Romania, a quote from Brooks says he used that exact phrase on the players before that game, when a letdown could have precluded the U.S. from reaching the medal round.
Perhaps the most curious movie change is to the elegantly brief and legendary pregame talk that Brooks gave to inspire his players for the Soviet game. He said: “You were born to be a player. You were meant to be here. This moment is yours.†For some reason, the script adds all sorts of embellishing words to all three sentences in RussellÂ’s reenactment, including replacing the priceless “This moment is yours,†with “This is your time.Ââ€
Unfortunately, the film-makers, like a lot of fans, were so drained by the Soviet conquest that the movie misses some incredible drama in the gold medal game against Finland – when no medal was yet certain. “Everything in the movie is geared at the Russian game, as if we spent the whole year building up to it,†said Harrington. “Actually, Herb prepared us for every game, and we had no idea we would even play the Russians.Ââ€
But itÂ’s only a movie. It’s the best thing done so far on that magical two weeks. And maybe itÂ’s best to leave something more for that “Miracle West†sequel.
(All rights: John Gilbert, Tuesday, February 17th, 2004 02:00:57 AM)
New Corvette shines some light on 2005 upgrades
MILFORD, MICH. — Nothing that Chevrolet could have done to the new Corvette had a chance of escaping notice, but when the company made a dramatic styling alteration for the debut of the 2005 C6 Corvette, it took a long time before Chevy shed a little light on the situation.
The new Corvette is entirely new, from platform to wheelbase to six-liter V8 to its fiberglass body panels, and it is five full inches shorter than its predecessor, and with 400 horsepower and 400 foot-pounds of torque, it is faster than the outgoing C5 model. But the most controversial change made in the C6 compared to the eight-year-run of the C5 is its headlights.
Even though the better new car is actually reduced in price, $44,245 for the coupe and $52,245 for the convertible, there has been a little muttering from long-standing Corvette zealots. One, who has owned Corvettes for 30 years, whined to me that he thought he would keep his current ‘Vette rather than consider buying a new one. “This is the first time since 1963 that the Corvette hasn’t had flip-up headlights,†he moaned.
Now, I like flip-up headlights, but I like them best when they are flipped down. In fact, there has never been a car with flip-up headlights that didnÂ’t look better with the lights closed. So when I got my first glance at the new Corvette for 2005, with the clear lenses over the multi-beam headlights, I personally thought it was a major improvement.
But it wasn’t until the national media introductory drive of the Corvette, at the General Motors proving grounds in Milford, Mich., that General Motors illuminated its reasoning for the change. The journalists going to Milford went in what was called “waves,†which has never been more appropriate. An early-morning downpour turned into an all-day downpour, and GM had to close down the road course, which had standing water on numerous low spots. It was either that or announce that the newest GM vehicle would be called the “Ark.†The rain was particularly disappointing to me, because it was only one week after I had driven a Ford GT at 150 miles per hour on the nearby Ford test track, and I was eager to draw some comparisons.
The closing of the track meant that we got our chance to drive the new Corvettes on highways surrounding the proving grounds. We kept the speed down, and got to test the carÂ’s stability and traction a little, and its windshield wipers a lot. It also give us good reason to tune in completely during the pre-driving lectures inside a huge tent, including chief designer Luke Ananian, who was describing the features as he walked us around the car.
He pointed out that the headlights had small, bullet-like, high-intensity xenon gas discharge projector bulbs, two to a side. “All four of them are on when you hit the high beams,†said Ananian. “And when all four are on, you have 80 percent more light than on the C5 Corvette, with a 25 percent greater spread. The foglamps [located low in the bumper] have a complex parabola design. The foglamps have 58 percent of the total light of the current C5 headlights.Ââ€
The tremendous improvement in lighting was impressive, but also surprising, because many other cars from European, Japanese and other U.S. companies all have featured HID xenon lights for a decade or so. I had never noticed the Corvette lights were poor, but it was always noticeable when other cars had the xenon lights.
“ItÂ’s true, weÂ’ve never had them on the Corvette before,†said Ananian. “We couldnÂ’t package projector HID lights in the pop-ups.Ââ€
So there you have it. Chevrolet was caught in a public relations trap. ItÂ’s not proper to point out that your company ever had a problem, and promoting the new lights required divulging a shortcoming of CorvettesÂ…since 1963. On the other hand, by making a big deal of the new, improved lights, Chevrolet could have defused all the consternation and controversy from loyalists about turning away from pop-up headlights. One drive at night will be sufficient evidence.
The Corvette is ChevroletÂ’s halo vehicle, GMÂ’s corporate icon. Chevy folks are quick to point out that 50,000 Corvette fanciers visit the Bowling Green, Ky., assembly plant annually, and how something like 1.4 million Corvettes have been sold as the car enters its 51st year. “Corvettes have always combined three things – passionate design, performance technology and fantastic value,†said chief Corvette spokesman Dave Hill. “And the C6 will offer more of the same.Ââ€
There is no question that the new car is the best Corvette ever built. IÂ’ve always maintained that if the 1963-66 fastback Sting Ray Corvette was never built but came out now as a new car, it would be considered the sleekest and most stunning Corvette of all. But as Corvette designs have evolved, the C5 became the long-standing standard, and the C6 is definitely an improvement.
It is five inches shorter, and while it and the Cadillac XLR sports car share the platform and its stiffness and lightness, as well as its electromagnetic suspension, the Corvette went its own way on the exterior, interior and engine. The engine grows from 5.7 to 6.0 liters, and while its 400 horsepower remain the same, the new engine increases torque up to 400 foot-pounds, and it will rev to 6,500 RPMs. ThatÂ’s a lot of revs for a pushrod engine, but Chevy wanted to maintain the old engine design. Its power is constant, giving the Corvette a top speed of 186 miles per hour, and the stiff body, and the immediate-action shocks that firm up in a microsecond when you swerve, make the car handle as well as it goes.
Chief designer Tom Peters said he wanted to capture the passion of the old Sting-Ray Corvettes (yea!) without going retro. The wheels are pushed out to the corners, meaning an increase of 1.25 inches in wheelbase even with a five-inch reduction in overall length. The front overhang is reduced by 3.1 inches in front and 2 inches in the rear. The wheels are 18-inch in front and 19 at the rear, and contribute to an agile and responsive feel.
The audio system can be upgraded to a 5.1-channel Bose DVD surround unit, with a touch screen and six CD player. The heads-up display readout projected on the windshield can be programmed for three different modes of information. Designers said the Audi TT and the Porsche 911 were the benchmark vehicles they used for the interior. It is refined and understated, although no car interior rises to the class of the Audi TT, in my opinion.
One of the neatest features on the Corvette is the keyless entry system, which takes that term far beyond commonplace remote-fob push buttons. If you have the key fob in hand, or in pocket or purse, you don’t need to use it to unlock the car door, or to use it to activate the ignition. You pull the no-handle vertical edge of the door and it will have unlocked itself, by the mere presence of the key transmitter within six feet. Climb into the improved bucket seat, and it’s the same when you start the car – as if you were using the key, even though it’s still in your pocket.
HereÂ’s the best part. If, for example, youÂ’re driving your wife to the airport, and she takes the key in order to stash her suitcase in the quite-spacious luggage area under the hatch before you came out. With either of you having the key, you both could get in the car, and you could start it and drive. If she mistakenly kept the key while she got onto an airplane and was en route to Seattle, the car would keep running as long as you were in it. And, in ChevroletÂ’s attempt to make such a neat feature idiot-proof, it even would allow you one restart, just to assure you that you could drive home, or to a dealership for backup.
If it happens to be dark, turn on the lights – by all means – and notice how bright everything seems. And how you don’t have those silly flip-up doors sticking up in your line of vision.
(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.)
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.)
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.)
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