Car and Driver - November 2005

Transcription

RED-HOT TESTS: DODGE VIPER COUPE, PORSCHE CAYMAN S
253
MPH
BUGATTI VEYRON!
WE
(AND ONLY WE)
DRIVE
NOVEMBER 2005 www.CARandDRIVER.com
IN THE
1001-HP
SUPERTUNER BRAWL: Finding the fastest four-banger.
NEW: Aston Martin V-8 Vantage, Mazda 5, Audi Q7.
PLUS: Ford Explorer vs. Jeep Commander. Joie Chitwood returns.
US $3.99 UK £3.20
CANADA $4.99
NOVEMBER
58
VOLUME 51 ■ NUMBER 5 ■ 2005
HIGH-SPEED PREVIEW
58 BUGATTI VEYRON 16.4
The fastest and most expensive production car ever. By Csaba Csere
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
110 Among the high-horsepower brigade was at least one guy who brought
something practical—a car he could sleep in.
ROAD TESTS
74 DODGE VIPER SRT10 COUPE
The reptile gets a roof. By Barry Winfield
80 MERCEDES-BENZ R500
A slick way to avoid me-tooing the usual luxo choices.
By Patrick Bedard
100 MERCEDES-BENZ C350 SPORT
You’ve paid for Bordeaux, but your friends think you got merlot.
By Tony Quiroga
ON THE COVER:
YIKES! 253 MPH!
The editor takes the 1001-hp Bugatti
Veyron 16.4 for a spin. A serious spin.
PHOTOGRAPHY BY ACHIM HARTMANN
110
COMPARISON TEST
90 MEN IN UNIFORM
Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer 4x4 vs. Jeep Commander Limited 4x4.
By John Phillips
PREVIEWS
54 MAZDA 5
Mazda thinks the youth market comes in a box. By Barry Winfield
54 DODGE RAM MEGA CAB
The wizard grants a limo for cowboys. By Dave VanderWerp
55 MITSUBISHI RAIDER
A Dakota dressed to thrill. By Steve Spence
74
90
66
NOVEMBER
MORE PREVIEWS
52 ASTON MARTIN V-8 VANTAGE
A first drive of Aston’s smallest. And finest. By Ray Hutton
66 PORSCHE CAYMAN S
Europe on 291 horsepower a day. By Aaron Robinson
SHORT TAKE
151 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE GS
Heavy on style, light on adrenaline. By Tony Swan
158 BMW 325i
Think of it as 330i lite. By Dave VanderWerp
FEATURES
Web Exclusives!
AUTO-SHOW COVERAGE
Visit us in Tokyo, and if you can’t make it to Asia,
then come see us online at www.CARandDRIVER.com
for complete coverage of the 39th-annual Tokyo motor show.
Press days are October 19–20. See what’s new here first!
PHOTO GALLERIES
For more photos of this month’s vehicles—such as the
most-powerful-ever, most-expensive-ever production car,
the Bugatti Veyron 16.4; the new Mitsubishi Raider;
the enormous Dodge Ram Mega Cab;
and the ultra-sexy Aston Martin V-8 Vantage—visit us online.
POLLS
Go to our home page, answer our weekly polls, and tell us what
you think. We want to hear from you!
148 HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO US
We cook our own birthday cake on the broiling asphalt at Indy.
By John Phillips
154 LONG-TERM TEST: CADILLAC SRX V-8
Growing pains taint, but do not despoil, our affection for this
two-time 5Best winner. By Ron Kiino
162 SPORT: JOIE CHITWOOD’S
INDIANAPOLIS THRILL SHOW
An heir to the legendary daredevil act finds a place in the
Brickyard’s front office. (Hey, Joie, keep your helmet close by.)
By Bob Zeller
COLUMNS
13 THE STEERING COLUMN
Are plug-in hybrids the next big thing? By Csaba Csere
20 BACKFIRES
Lords of envy, Hummerheads, Top Tier gas revealed.
26 PATRICK BEDARD
Give ‘em a brake? What they want are your bucks.
32 BROCK YATES
148
154
Oh, how the mighty have fallen (and it ain’t over).
36 JOHN PHILLIPS
I attempt to ruin a Segway and fail.
38 UPFRONT
Audi SUV arrives late, horsepower controversy, pretty police.
187 LAST PAGE:
Reader Sightings
10
www.CARandDRIVER.com
NOVEMBER 2005
THE STEERING COLUMN
CSABA CSERE
Are plug-in
hybrids the next
big thing?
L
ast May, there was a short article in
BusinessWeek magazine about something called a “plug in” hybrid. Within
the same week, there was another mention
in the Wall Street Journal. Then in June,
Thomas L. Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times columnist, the author
of a current bestselling commentary on
world affairs, and a man frequently
described as “influential,” wrote a column
in which he extolled plug-in hybrids. He
suggested that they got “about 500 miles per
gallon of gasoline.”
Then I read that James Woolsey, former
director of the CIA, has endorsed these plugin hybrids. So has a former secretary of the
treasury, George Shultz, and so did Frank
Gaffney, a former deputy assistant secretary
of defense for nuclear forces. What was this
technology that seemingly came out of
nowhere to draw such prominent support so
quickly?
The idea is pretty simple. Take a Toyota
Prius hybrid and install the “EV only”
switch that is standard on Japanese and
European Priuses but absent on American
models. Pressing this switch forces the Prius
to run only on its electric motor and precludes the gasoline motor from starting up.
Then add some additional battery capacity
to increase the Prius’s range in this electriconly mode. Finally, you install a charger so
that when you park the Prius, you can plug
it in to make sure the enlarged battery pack
is fully charged for your next journey.
The result is an electric car without the
usual range limitation: If you must travel farther than the range provided by the battery,
you simply take the car out of the “EV only”
mode and let the gasoline engine propel you
as far as you wish to go.
A person with a short commute could
drive his or her modified Prius without ever
starting the gas engine. Even if the gasoline
engine were needed, the mileage would be
spectacular. For example, if the plug-in Prius
could travel 10 miles on the battery alone,
NOVEMBER 2005
on a 20-mile trip it would need to use the
gas engine for only 10 miles. Ten miles of
gasoline usage would burn about 0.2 gallon
of gas. Dividing the 20-mile total trip by 0.2
gallon equals 100 miles per gallon.
If that 0.2 gallon is a mix of 20-percent
gasoline and 80-percent ethanol, the modified car gets 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. This is how Friedman came up with the
spectacular mileage he quoted.
Although the electricity used to charge
the plug-in battery would likely be generated from a fossil-fuel-fired power plant,
both the Electric Power Research Institute
and the California Air Resources Board have
calculated that air pollution and carbondioxide emissions would fall substantially
using this approach. Furthermore, driving on
electric power would cost about 75 percent
less than driving on gas.
It all sounds theoretically feasible, and
after seeing so many mentions of these
plug-in hybrids, I didn’t understand how
this technology had achieved such
prominence without ever showing up on
Car and Driver’s radar screen.
Moreover, there were a few questions that none of the articles had
addressed. What was the top speed of a Prius
running on its electric motor alone? What
kind of range was possible in this electriconly mode? How much weight did the additional battery add? How much space did it
occupy? And how much did the extra battery cost? This is a particularly critical question given that hybrid cars already cost a
good deal more than traditional ones and the
majority of that added cost is in the stock
battery (a replacement battery for the Prius
costs about $6000). Could the Prius charge
its supplementary battery pack from its gasoline engine on a long trip? What did these
jury-rigged modifications do to the
admirably seamless operation of the unmodified Prius? What effect would the mods
have on the Prius’s stock battery life and
warranty?
Clearly, we needed to get our hands on
one of these cars and see for ourselves. Last
May, I assigned technical editor Dave VanderWerp to the case. He quickly did some
research and discovered that most of the
plug-in hybrids were—what a surprise—in
California. So VanderWerp handed off the
assignment to Aaron Robinson, our other
tech editor, based in L.A.
Robinson was busy and didn’t devote
himself 24/7 to this job, so he handed it over
to editor-at-large Barry Winfield, who also
made slow progress.
By late July, I was losing patience. Here
was a technology that had achieved national
prominence, and yet we couldn’t track down
a single vehicle to try out. I told Winfield to
make it his top priority to find one of these
machines and get himself behind the wheel
for a drive.
Here’s what he reported: “The developers of plug-in hybrids are extremely
unwilling to have their babies tested by any
means right now. Greg Hanssen of EnergyCS (who responded to my first call by
saying, ‘Car and Driver? Pat Bedard? Oh,
no, he’s extremely battery unfriendly!’) says
they will have some second-generation
cars—they will be more ‘autonomous,’ i.e.,
actually able to be driven by lay people—
for the local AQD [air-quality district] in
about six weeks’ time [early October].”
Winfield did learn that the maximum
speed in the EV-only mode is 34 mph and
that acceleration is modest, as the electric
motor develops no more than 28 horsepower
when running on batteries alone. He concluded that “the plug-in-hybrid developers
are happy to have the uncritical support of
various newspaper journalists who blithely
reprint the claims of 250 mpg, but as soon
as you say fuel consumption or performance
test, they’re not having any of it.”
‘How about 500 miles per
gallon of gasoline?’
Toyota has been somewhat befuddled by
this mutation of its Prius. Hanging additional
batteries and electronic controllers onto the
Prius’s meticulously developed powertrain
must make the engineers in Nagoya cringe.
Moreover, the company goes out of its way
to explain that its hybrids don’t need to be
plugged in. Now, these altered versions
directly contradict that message.
Meanwhile, DaimlerChrysler is looking
at building a run of 40 plug-in hybrid vans
for corporate fleet usage to test the concept.
And EnergyCS, one of the companies Winfield contacted, plans to start converting
Priuses to plug-in operation next year for
$12,000 per car.
My recommendation: Wait for a credible road test before you plunk down your
cash for one.
■
13
BACKFIRES
LORDS OF ENVY
Imagine, if you will, the
joyous excitement in
Maranello to see the Ferrari
F430 [“Lords of Envy,” C/D,
August 2005] get “best in
test” when it came to trunk
room as stated on page 47. I
am sure there were corks aflying and Chianti flowing
until, 13 pages later, you gave
the same car a 2 of 5 for
trunk space. Imagine the
stunned silence that filled the
making a double-entendre, let
alone knowing what that
means? Yes, we tend to
scratch cars that fail of their
own accord—an engine blows
up, for example. But the Gallardo’s clutch failure was due
to our faulty launch technique—Ed.
So what is that thing hanging
from the back of the Porsche
911 Turbo S cabriolet? I
would think any car that can
BILL NEALE
room in Italy. Not that any of
the expert craftsmen or
designers at the factory will
have to be put on suicide
watch, but how did this
happen?
PHIL WICK
Dayton, Ohio
The trunk-space section of the
results chart was wrong. The
correct results, with five
being best, are: Aston Martin
DB9, 4; Ferrari F430, 5;
Ford GT, 3; Lambo Gallardo,
4; M-B SL65 AMG, 5; and
Porsche 911 Turbo S, 4. Let
the corks fly!—Ed.
How about a little consistency? For 50 years, every car
unable to complete your comparo testing has been disqualified. (I would have said
“scratched” except for the
double-entendre.) Then out of
the blue, from six worthy
contestants, you suddenly
award a Lamborghini with a
tinfoil clutch second place!
THOMAS R. BUMP
LaGrange Park, Illinois
What other car magazine has
readers who worry about
20
blow your jock off would
rank higher than fourth place.
JASON KILPS
Watertown, Wisconsin
Possibly, it’s a wicked doubleentendre—Ed.
I’m glad to see the Ferrari
dynamics winning out over
the raw performance numbers, but I was puzzled at
your explanation of the
decrease in performance over
the European test car. When
you say the F430 lacked
U.S.-spec launch control and
you had to use a “normal
launch,” does that mean that
the F1 transmission actively
prohibits a harder launch, or
that you thought a little
restraint was in order considering it was a private car?
Would better performance be
possible if we wait for the
manual to come out, or is the
F430 simply destined to lose
to the GT on the track, due to
a half-second-slower launch?
ERIC BARKER
Moscow, Idaho
The Euro-spec launch control
Address your correspondence to:
BACKFIRES, Car and Driver, 2002 Hogback Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Our editorial department can also be reached electronically through our
Internet site (www.CARandDRIVER.com) or via our e-mail address
([email protected]). All letters become the property of Car and
Driver, and we reserve the right to edit them for length, accuracy, and clarity.
brings the revs up and drops
the clutch for a wheelspin
start. U.S.-bound F430s
won’t have that feature, so
yes, the manual car should be
faster—Ed.
I can’t take it anymore. You
know the Ford GT doesn’t sell
for anywhere near $150,000.
Maybe Ford should advertise
a $75,000 MSRP. Wouldn’t
that make it the bargain of the
century? I understand it must
be fun to turn laps in, but just
because Ford publishes nonsense shouldn’t be a reason
for you guys to follow suit.
DAVE RASMUSSEN
Ferndale, Washington
Surprise, surprise—jacked-up
dealer prices on Ford GTs
are falling. Check out
www.fordgtprices.com. A
history shows that a recent
one sold on eBay for
$163,000—Ed.
BEST LETTER
I feel obliged to dissuade
many automakers from
drafting a shifty mistake into
more and more vehicles. Only
two of the six exhilarating
machines sampled were
bolted to a true manual transmission. Endearing as it is to
see many companies incorporating more and more F1
technology into roadgoing
vehicles, I loathe the “automated manual.” I enjoy lifting
my foot from that pedal farthest to the left and knowing
exactly where the clutch is in
its travel and letting my right
Nelson wins a box of Turtle Wax
and a Texas Hold’Em starter kit.
hand dictate precisely when
to release the next bagful of
driving excitement. The connectedness you feel with a
stick and clutch greatly surpasses that of a button. It
really doesn’t help if I can
shave 0.07 second off my
commute to work if it feels
like I am playing Halo 2.
A 330i that could run all
day at 15,000 rpm would
really get my blood boiling,
not a button. Perhaps my
mind would change if Ferrari
let me sample an F430 for a
year or two. Or perhaps I am
old-fashioned, but that
couldn’t be: I’m only 19.
CALVIN NELSON
Castle Rock, Colorado
Sure these cars are awesome,
but the car that everyone
seems to forget in comparisons of this caliber is the
Dodge Viper. The SRT10
matches and even beats
almost every car in this comparo in horsepower, torque,
acceleration, and handling. In
my opinion, it looks cooler,
too. All this for a little more
than half the price of the
others.
CHRIS ROBINSON
Salt Lake City, Utah
Lemme see if I have this
right: The least expensive
exotic supercar with the best
horsepower-to-weight ratio,
best acceleration, and fastest
lap time finishes third
because there isn’t enough
room to store your stuff? You
guys are getting old, soft, or
perhaps both. To make matters worse, it finishes behind
a marque that has never been
known for anything remotely
resembling reliability and,
true to form, blew up a clutch
and never even turned a
wheel on the track! Whiskey
Tango Foxtrot, mate?!?
Should I hit the Powerball
tonight and have the requisite
$180,000 to purchase a Gallardo burning an automotivesize hole in my pocket, I have
absolutely no doubt where I’d
spend it. I’d go to the Ford
NOVEMBER 2005
dealer and put my name on a
GT, and with the considerable
change left over, purchase an
enclosed trailer to hold it and
a lightly used Super Duty
diesel with which to tow them
to the track.
MATT NICHOLSON
Shelby, North Carolina
HEY, GOOD -LOOKIN’
The Dodge Charger R/T
[C/D, August 2005] looks
like a Maverick with a groovy
new ground-effects package.
First-year teachers already are
lining up for the sensible V-6.
Tell Daimler to go über-retro
and name the yellow one
Honey Bee, in honor of its
former allies.
BRYAN MURRAY
Dallas, Oregon
The Charger looks like a pig
with an overbite. ROB GALLO
Bradford, Vermont
What has a Dodge truck grille,
’62 Chrysler slant-look headlights, and the flanks of a ’48
Tucker? The Charger R/T
makes the Edsel look good.
Lee’s challenge should be, “If
you can find an uglier car, buy
it!” Lucky it has a Hemi,
’cause you’ll want to get
home before anyone sees you.
KEVIN KLATT
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
It is a sad state of affairs
when an engineer has to point
out that you guys must have
flunked high-school literature. Your Charger piece starts
out with a reference to M.
Dumas and his character
D’Artagnan. You imply that
this flamboyant gentleman
was one of the Trois Musketeers. Non, monsieur,
D’Artagnan was not a musketeer until the very end of the
novel, and then he was the
fourth musketeer. I think you
got at least one name right:
Athos (or Curly).
At any rate, I enjoyed your
article greatly and the July
50th edition even more. As I
am being reassigned to the
U.K. for two years, I will be
reading your work only after
my motorhead daughter sees
fit to send me the magazine.
Things could be worse.
KEN KOZOL
Eldridge, Iowa
Yes, you could be just all tied
up in double-entendre knots,
monsewer. Phillips wrote only
that D’Artagnan was the best
known of the protagonists in
the book—Ed.
COUNTING SHEEP
In your Short Take on the
Dodge Magnum R/T AWD
[C/D, August 2005], you
state, “Move the steering
wheel off-center, as you
would to enter a corner.”
Thanks for clearing that up;
otherwise, I’d be lying awake
at night trying to understand
MS. GOODWENCH By Pippa Garner
why anyone would wish to
turn a steering wheel.
MIKE MCMENAMIN
Cinnaminson, New Jersey
TOO MANY SPOKES
The road test of the Hyundai
Sonata LX [C/D, August
2005] mentions the “test car’s
elegant wheels” and even
shows a close-up of the fivespoke wheels. However, the
photo at the bottom of page
75 shows a vehicle with sixspoke wheels. Is this a clever
option called “variable-spoke
wheels”? KEN SCHROEDER
Golden, British Columbia
Our photog at the press
launch shot a Sonata with a
different wheel package. Now,
feel better?—Ed.
HUMMERHEADS
A few quick notes to all the
idiots who will buy, and have
already bought, Hummer H3s
[C/D, August 2005]:
1. You are not driving a
Hummer, you are driving an
economy pickup truck in a
Halloween costume and
paying an $11,000 premium
to do so.
2. Even if you, or any of
the other suburban women
driving the H3, planned to
use these vehicles on anything more off-road than a
pothole, a $24,830 Rubicon
would school your $29,500
H3 on any terrain, and with
$5000 in suspension, wheel,
and tire upgrades, it would do
the same to your husband’s
$53,855 H2.
3. Hogging the road with
these behemoths (mostly
while talking on your cell
phones) is not only dangerous
and bad for the environment
but also irresponsible. Aaron
Robinson is right: Playing GI
Joe (or, more likely, Jane) is
an embarrassing insult to our
troops who are dying in H1s
as we speak.
PAT CORCORAN
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Your argument looks especially good because that
Rubicon has been discounted
by $3295—Ed.
Aaron Robinson had it right
about feeling uncomfortable
driving the H3 while our soldiers are dying in the real
thing. The H2 and the H3
aren’t just silly and stupid,
they are sad. GM needs to
make the real thing, uparmored and in quantity.
Forget about the H2 and H3
plastic crap. Devote the
assembly line to helping our
troops, now! STEVE SKLUTE
Tallahassee, Florida
The H3 and the H2 are to an
H1 Humvee what Benny Hill
in a dress is to Elizabeth
Hurley.
JOHN THOMAS
Havre de Grace, Maryland
SERIOUS STUFF
In your “Sneaky Previews”
story [C/D, August 2005],
you show the new BMW M3.
Putting aside comments on its
overall appearance for now,
how do you expect it will
handle with tire sizes that
appear to be 285/30-19 fronts
and 205/30-13 rears? Since
one of the writers, Tony
Quiroga, also wrote the Short
Take of the Dodge Magnum
R/T AWD in the same issue
and included no less than
three drug references in less
than a page of writing, my
guess is he’s also your computer graphics guy.
HARRY VIENER
Burke, Virginia
Looks like a photo, but in
fact, it’s an illustration, fanciful in spots—Ed.
MINI COASTER
I hate to burst Jim McCraw’s
22
NOVEMBER 2005
bubble [“Track-Ready
Mini,” Upfront, C/D, August
2005], but that same Mini
Cooper roller-coaster ride is
also available at Paramount
Canada’s Wonderland just
north of Toronto. It even has
the same name, so it’s not
“available only” near Cincinnati.
DAN BEKIROSKI
Kitchener, Ontario
McCraw likely thinks of
Canada as a foreign country
that you need a passport to
get into—Ed.
MS. GOODWENCH By Pippa Garner
PLACING A BET
Yates, I’ll take you up on that
bet from your column [“My
driveway was glutted with
red cars,” C/D, August
2005]. After a full-page rant
scented by Aspercreme, Polident, and high-emissions
exhaust, you want to wager
that the industry will continue
its “incredible advances in
automotive technology.” To
showcase these “incredible
advances,” you chose a
Bentley Continental GT, the
car with the dubious honor of
the lowest mpg (9) from your
10Worst Performers list of
2004 and available only to
automotive journalists and the
wealthy, rather than look forward to the future of alternative-fuel or hybrid-powered
vehicles or today’s abundance
of stock 200-plus-hp fourbangers. This is a shining
example of either your ignorance or your arrogance; I
suspect both. You’re a
grumpy old geezer who
should retire and let the next
generation usher in the future
of automobiles that you poohpooh every chance you get.
JUSTIN KLEIN
Kalamazoo, Michigan
We e-mailed Yates for a
response but were told he was
off Lahaina sport-hunting for
whales—Ed.
REDNECKS ARISE!
You’ve gotta be kidding me:
“Pandering to the latent redneck in all of us” [Long-Term
Nissan Titan SE Crew Cab
4x4, C/D, August 2005]? I
would hope that a true redneck wouldn’t be caught dead
or alive in a Nissan Titan.
C’mon! An imported 4x4
trying to do the work of a
Ford, Chevy, or Dodge? I
24
cringe every time I see a
Honda Ridgeline or Nissan
Titan on the road. Where is
the patriotic loyalty? The
grand U.S. of A. is known for
Girls Gone Wild, Crooked
Politicians, and 4x4 Trucks! I
don’t care if you slap a V-12
in that Nissan and can haul a
small three-bedroom house.
It’s still a Nissan!
MICHAEL BOWYER
Portland, Oregon
LIGHT GOES ON
Your story “The People’s
Republic of Models” [C/D,
August 2005] about car
models made in China is, to
say the least, frightening. You
have exposed to the world
what it is really like to live in
China and be a factory
worker. Living in dorms and
making about 32 cents an
hour working 12 hours a day
and 6 days a week should
frighten every factory worker
in the U.S.A., Japan, and
western Europe. Your pictures
of the workers sitting on
boxes in a fog of paint,
fumes, and whatever is in the
air reminds me of 19th-century labor conditions we used
to read about.
Think about it. If they can
build models that cheaply,
what is going to happen to
our economies when China
really starts building cars and
selling them around the
world?
JOHN WESTCOTT
Stevensville, Maryland
ROUNDABOUTS
Reading Pat Bedard’s column
on roundabouts [“Road
designers find a new way to
sell the S-word,” C/D, August
2005] made me want to buy a
copy for every city councilman in Prescott, Arizona.
These tenders of tax dollars
built us a roundabout on one
of our more industrial streets
here and in less than a year
tore it back out! (My tax dollars at work!) The letters to
the editor in the local paper
are running about 10 to 1
against putting in another one
out of town. The local city
fathers tell us it’s a state decision, not theirs.
Maybe roundabouts work
fine in a country where they
still don’t know which side of
the road to drive on, but here
in Arizona’s high country
(and premier retirement community), along with the “deer
in the headlights,” we also
have antelope, elk, and
javelin. Oh, the carnage of it
all.
THOMAS GATCHELL
Prescott, Arizona
TOP TIER GAS
If Andy Rooney read Larry
Webster’s column [“Your car
is a temple, so put in the good
stuff,” C/D, August 2005] on
Top Tier gas, I can just hear
him saying, “Why do people
who write articles to provide
information leave out the
most important part?” You
wrote an excellent article
about Top Tier gas and even
tempted us by saying there are
now eight approved sources
available. Do you dare take
the next step and tell the
readers the names of the
approved brands? Noooooo.
But you do give us a lead by
providing an Internet link—
www.toptiergas.com—to get
the info. What would be so
difficult in saying, “These are
the brands: QuikTrip,
Chevron, Conoco, Phillips,
76, Shell, Entec Stations,
MFA Oil Company [Kwik
Trip, Somerset Refinery]”?
It’s like saying, “Here are the
baseball scores: 4-3, 5-0, 7-4,
and 6-5.” Why bother to give
the team names? And what
about people who don’t have
access to a computer?
FRED ROSEN
Los Angeles, California
THIRD WORLD DEPT.
Referring to your Reader
Sightings in the August 2005
issue, specifically, “Maybe
they meant coffee shop,” once
again your American ignorance comes shining through.
The photo didn’t mean coffee
shop, it is indeed a coffin
shop—yes, dammit, they sell
caskets! And just to confirm,
I read the Chinese characters
and my Malay colleague read
the Malay and confirmed that
it is indeed a casket shop.
In this part of the world,
people still don’t use funeral
homes much. The funeral
service is usually done at
home, and since they need to
put the dead body somewhere
before they put it six feet
under or burn it to a crisp,
they go to the coffin shop and
buy the coffin.
Isn’t it amazing, for
someone like me, who has
lived in, among other places,
Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and, oh, yes,
the U.S. of A., to know so
much more than you who
probably lived all your life in
the U.S. and think that the
U.S. is the center of the universe?
ALFRED P. LAM
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Apparently, you didn’t major
in humor. Look at the
picture again, Mr. World
Traveler. Now, pronounce
the name of the shop. Get
■
it? Get it?—Ed.
NOVEMBER 2005
PATRICK BEDARD
Give ’em a brake?
What they want
are your bucks.
on’t leave home without it” is one of
ad slogans that forever rattle
“Dthose
around in the cerebral echo chamber,
having been slammed in by cubic dollars’
worth of media airtime. The words mean just
about nothing. Don’t leave home without
what? Your underpants? Your snub-nosed
.38? But we know they mean your American
Express card because relentless advertising
bombardment has welded the two nouns
together in our minds.
This sort of hammer welding is extremely
durable. I don’t remember much about my
mother’s TV favorite, The Jack Benny Show,
except for L.S./M.F.T.—“Lucky Strike
Means Fine Tobacco.”
But the hammer isn’t necessary when the
words are right. “Give ’em a brake.” Of
course! Don’t hit road workers. Slow down
in construction zones.
“Give ’em a brake” stuck with me the first
time. It’s clever. It’s tight on the message.
And maybe it has something else going for
it. Are we the sort of unfeeling savages who
would cut down humans in orange vests in
exchange for shorter commutes?
No way!
Now there’s another slogan with the same
target. “Slow down or pay up.” It’s delivered
by a looming trooper with a ticket book. I
think I’ll be able to remember that one, too.
At least one state has created an exceptionally effective reminder for work-zone
speeds. In Illinois, the ticket for first-offense
speeding in a construction zone comes with
a $375 fine, the second offense is $1000 and
a license suspension. In July, the state also
began using photo radar in work zones.
Dare we ask how many construction
workers they are killing in the Prairie State?
After a century of peaceful co-existence
between road builders and road users, something has apparently changed. Suddenly,
we’re confronted by a killer epidemic seemingly more deadly than West Nile virus. The
plight of construction workers is constantly
held up before us, by roadway signs, by
public-service announcements, by print ads.
It even grabbed its own awareness week,
April 3–9, this year—“National Work Zone
26
Awareness Week”—complete with a highpressure spray of statistics: work-zone fatalities rose “nearly 50 percent” nationally
between 1997 and 2003 with 1028 deaths in
that most recent year; one work-zone fatality
occurs every 8.5 hours, three a day.
These are macabre numbers. They make
it sound like Americans are motorized
maniacs with no regard for the workers who
make our highways possible.
This, to me, is a shocking notion. And I’ll
tell you what’s even more shocking—it’s not
true. These numbers are for all traffic-related
fatalities in work zones, including drivers,
passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
others who were in the traffic stream.
Workers, too, of course.
How many workers? Numerous studies
over the years confirm that construction
zones are dangerous, but they point to other
killers. One study by the Centers for Disease
Control counted 492 fatalities over the years
1992 to 1998: 306 of them were struck by
vehicles—154 by construction vehicles and
152 by traffic vehicles.
Another study by the Center to Protect
Workers’ Rights, based on Bureau of Labor
Statistics data for 1999, said that of 530
vehicle-related deaths of workers that year,
170 involved traffic vehicles and 360
were divided between workers in construction vehicles and workers on foot
struck by heavy equipment or trucks.
For a list of gruesome ways to die,
just read down the list of reports from
the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health: Laborer dies after
being run over by asphalt roller; truck driver
dies after his vehicle rolled over an embankment and came to rest on its top; asphaltcompactor operator dies from crushing
injuries during machine rollover; 17-year-old
laborer dies after being run over by a water
truck; laborer dies after falling underneath
the wheel of a front-end loader; crane operator falls 30 feet from a freeway overpass.
Now back to Illinois, the land of the
$1000 speeding fines. It reports 39 workzone fatalities last year; only two of them
were workers. Moreover, two is the state’s
annual average over the past nine years, the
only years covered in the latest report.
Obviously, “Give ’em a brake” in Illinois
is cover for a program aimed at something
else. What could it be? Consider this clue:
The law states that workers needn’t be
present for a violation to occur.
Actual construction isn’t necessary to
trigger the violation, either. How many times
have you driven past mile after mile of construction signs on a road otherwise undisturbed, lacking even the loose dust of past
repairs? The public would surely object if the
highway department simply put up signs that
said, “Feeling lucky? Fines are double
today.” So it puts up construction signs
instead and pretends to be saving defenseless
workers from uncaring motorists.
Illinois is not alone in levying construction-zone penalties when no workers are
present; 25 other states do so as well, and 18
of them double the fine or have some other
way of upping the take.
There is, of course, the argument that
1028 people were killed in work zones in
2003, proving that these are dangerous places
where motorists should slow down.
Maybe. But statistics from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration don’t
support that argument. Work-zone fatalities
were only 2.4 percent of all traffic deaths in
2003. More than three times as many people
were killed in crashes with shrubbery and
trees. More than twice as many died in
crashes with poles and posts. More were
killed by crashes into guardrails.
Then why are we suddenly hearing so
much about speeds in construction zones?
Consider this from the state of Georgia:
“Funding for this [work-zone awareness]
campaign is being provided through a federal safety-awareness grant. The campaign
includes statewide radio, television, and billboard ads to remind drivers to slow down in
work zones.” Every one of these campaigns
is funded either entirely or partly by the Federal Highway Administration. The American
Road & Transportation Builders Association
Construction workers
needn’t even be present
for a violation to occur.
admits planting “a provision” in the highway
bill for funding of speed enforcement on federally aided projects.
Let’s return to Illinois—and its $1000
speeding fines—where two workers were
killed by traffic vehicles last year. Nine
workers, more than four times as many, were
killed by construction mishaps in work
zones, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When you clear away the slogans, “Give
’em a brake” is not about worker safety. It’s
about government agencies spending money
and raising more.
■
NOVEMBER 2005
BROCK YATES
Oh, how the
mighty have fallen
(and it ain’t over).
hile we ink-stained wretches in the
so-called automotive press prattle
endlessly about the glories of performance and fuel economy among the
plethora of wondrous new products, we
remain dismal correspondents relating to the
major issues facing the industry.
For example: We stand by as witless
spectators as the largest and greatest automobile empire in history slowly disintegrates, as helpless as those witnessing the
terror of 9/11. I speak of General Motors,
which has been, within the lifetime of many
scanning this blather, the most powerful
industrial entity on earth. When I entered
this strange little trade several decades ago,
GM controlled more than 50 percent of the
domestic market and was constantly threatened by an assault from Washington (based
on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890), a
last-ditch effort to prevent the so-called
Chrome Colossus from driving rivals Ford
and Chrysler into oblivion.
In fact, in 1976 the president of GM, Pete
Estes, and his CEO, Tom Murphy, quietly
set up what they called a “60-60-60” formula
that involved GM’s capturing 60 percent of
the market while the stock hit $60 a share
before the 60th birthdays of the two execs.
Today, both market share and the stock price
are roughly a third of those values.
It’s not as if anyone hadn’t warned them.
In 1972 the late, much-admired former managing editor of this magazine, John Jerome,
wrote The Death of the Automobile, in which
he predicted massive troubles for the
domestic industry. Four years before, I had
written “The Gross Pointe Myopians” on
these pages, warning that Japanese imports
were invading California and the nation like
the creatures in War of the Worlds. In 1983
I wrote The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry and was lambasted
as an idiot by fellow journalists and industry
pooh-bahs from coast to coast. Like it or not,
I was right.
Today the so-called Big Three are poised
to fall below a 50-percent share of the
domestic market (excluding loss-leader fleet
and rental sales). According to R.L. Polk &
W
32
Co., which tracks auto sales, Detroit clung
to 53.6 percent of the retail market in 2004,
down from 62 percent in 1999—this while
Asian brands jumped more than eight percent to hold a 38.6-percent share of American business during the same period.
Worse yet, in several of the states projected to gain the most in population by
2030, the Big Three have already fallen
below half the market share. This has taken
place thanks to the explosion of sales of
imports such as Toyota/Lexus, Honda/
Acura, and Nissan/Infiniti and in spite of
dismal performances by Mitsubishi,
Daewoo, and Isuzu.
Keep in mind that five of these states are
expected to gain nearly 50 million new residents by 2030, which only adds to the
potential for further Japanese growth, based
on the tastes of
younger buyers
and the rapidly
expanding Hispanic population,
both of which
greatly prefer the
rice-burner imports over domestic brands.
And these clouds of despair hovering
over Detroit can only get worse. Not only
are the South Koreans poking into the
market with improved products from
Hyundai, but the vast industrial empire of
China looms on the horizon. The design and
manufacture of automobiles is not rocket
science. There is no question that the Chinese are eyeing the U.S. automobile market,
and sooner rather than later world-class vehicles from Beijing or Shanghai will challenge
not only the Japanese and Koreans but what
is left of the American (and European) businesses.
The question nags: Can anything be done
to save Detroit? Surely, unless GM, Ford,
and DaimlerChrysler can shed their egregious UAW labor contracts and their budgetcrushing retirement obligations, they are
doomed. Beyond that they must break out of
the large-SUV and light-truck markets—
which they still dominate—and begin
building five-star passenger automobiles that
equal the imports in quality, performance,
and value. The Chrysler 300C, the Ford
Mustang GT, the Pontiac Solstice, etc., are
serious contenders but cannot counterbalance such nightmares as the Pontiac Aztek,
the dishwater-dull Buick LaCrosse, the Ford
Five Hundred, etc., and the overall industry’s
wretched reliance on large-displacement
pushrod V-6 and V-8 engines that were first
designed and created more than a half-century ago.
While the Japanese pump out new
models like popcorn, the Detroiters for the
most part lump along with rehashed antiques
year in and year out, whining that development of fresh products, some analysts maintain, costs them more than it costs their Asian
rivals—which, by the way, have invaded
American turf with state-of-the-art factories
featuring kanban (just in time) processes that
tend to leave the locals looking like buggywhip makers.
If any vestige of the American automobile industry is to survive, it must involve
state-of-the-art vehicles that are not equal to
but surpass the best imports in every way.
They must be conventional passenger cars,
not trucks or SUVs, because sedans are at
the core of the market and will remain so for
the foreseeable future. Such vehicles can
only be developed and sold in a growing
worldwide market by smaller, leaner,
meaner, more energetic and creative teams
of men and women in the Motor City. It will
require ugly confrontations with the UAW
and the corporate retirees as well as the
dealer organizations and, in some cases,
If the Big Three are to survive, it will
require ugly confrontations with the
UAW and the corporate retirees.
inbred customer groups, but the
Armageddon must come if any chance of
survival exists.
Can it succeed? Perhaps, but the clock is
ticking perilously close to doomsday.
orgive me for touting a personal item
F here, but my wife, the lovely Lady
Pamela, has written a wonderful book that
was published in September. It is titled The
Gift of More (FaithWalk Publishing: Grand
Haven, Michigan, 2005) and deals with the
tragic loss of her son (my stepson), Sean
Reynolds, in 1994 to a rare form of cancer.
Yet within this terrible period of our lives
came a strange and inspirational message
that some might term as religious, others as
merely spiritual.
Either way, the book is an amazing,
brilliant, heartwarming story that will
brighten and inspire all who read it. For more
information, visit Pamela’s Web site at
www.thegiftofmore.com.
■
NOVEMBER 2005
I attempt to
ruin a Segway
and fail.
T
here’s a scene in The Cannonball Run
when Terry Bradshaw drives a red
Chevy Monte Carlo into a motel pool.
About half of the water explodes skyward,
as if Miss Budweiser had just blasted
through. That scene is always funny. Always.
It’s like chimpanzees talking to each other
while playing poker. You could show that
clip nine times to Henry Kissinger and he’d
fall on the floor every time.
So I snapped to attention when Klee
Kleber, the V-P of marketing for Segway,
said, “We had this one customer, I don’t
know how, but he got going too fast and
drove into his pool. He called, asked what
he should do. ‘Well,’ we told him, ‘yank it
out, park it in the sun, see if she starts.’ And
when it did, he said, ‘Hey, man, cool.’ ”
Here we have my kind of machine.
I didn’t ride the original Segway Human
Transporter in 2002, because three editors
here said it was “a goofy girl thing as stupid
as Lido’s electric bike and maybe as stupid
as cabbage tofu from Whole Foods.” But I
felt bad about it. I really wanted to ride one.
Now comes the manlier $4995 Segway
Cross-Terrain Transporter (XT), whose
knobby Ground Buster II tires and stronger
lithium-ion batteries may still mean it’s a
goofy girl thing but for girls who are into
off-roading and feeling free and adventurous
and vigorous. Which, you know, was sort of
the idea behind the first SUV.
I spent 10 minutes learning to ride the
XT in C/D’s atrium, where I left one black
tire scuff on a white wall, not so much a Darlington stripe as a Hogback stripe.
You just lean on your toes to go forward.
Stand upright to stop. Lean on the heels of
your feet to back up. Underneath my mooseskin Minnetonkas, the Segway felt eerily
animate, an intellectual ally trying to predict
my next move. As if by instinct, for instance,
it carried me directly to the nearest drivethru beer store. I was wearing a tie.
As I was performing in-place pirouettes
on the XT near my house, a county cop
pulled alongside to ask if I was drunk or
insane or from New York.
“Step out of your cruiser, you gotta try
36
this,” I demanded, possibly referring to him
once or twice as “dude.” And he did. The
cop rode up and down my street, executed a
couple of spins himself—causing his
revolver to slap against his hip—then leaned
into the handlebars with enough force to
engage what the Segway guys call the
“belly-button governor.” The harder you lean
forward—which is how you gain speed—
the harder the Segway pushes back,
inflicting a horizontal red stripe above your
belt buckle, like too-tight Jockeys.
The XT’s top speed is
12.5 mph, way faster than I
can run. “See, there’s
another reason I like it,”
observed my cop, perhaps
imagining one of the more
colorful perp-fleeing scenes
in Cops. The Segway comes
with three keys—black,
yellow, and red. Each
unleashes more battery
power:
Cop: “Halt, or I’ll . . .”
Perp: “Or you’ll what?”
Cop: “Or I’ll fish around
in my pants for the red key.”
Even in the most powerful red mode, the XT’s batteries are good for 9 to 12
miles off-road, depending on New knobby tires—good for hills and automatic carwashes.
the terrain. In truth, the XT
A study showed that Americans accomgoes off-road like, say, a Honda CR-V goes
off-road—you know, not so much the Snake plish 86 percent of their errands by autoRiver Canyon as the links at Augusta. In mobile. In Europe, it’s 30 to 48 percent. You
fairness, I never found a hill so steep that it can deduce whatever you want from that. “It
forced me to leap off. Instead, the Segway shows we’re faster and more evolved than
just refused to climb any farther, going into the Europeans,” Republicans will say. “It
“stick-shaker mode”—an audible and tactile shows we’re fatter and more wasteful than
warning that you’re doing something that is the Europeans,” Democrats will say. All I
officially prohibited and could result in know is this: When SUV drivers see me on
damage to a recently erected small metal the Segway, they slap their thighs and
shed where a valued neighbor stores his squeeze fluid through their noses. But you’d
Lawn-Boy. When the stick shook, I simply think they’d encourage me. Doesn’t it leave
more room for Suburbans and Excursions
backed down the hill. It was easy.
What more commonly caused an “off” on dubs? Especially in front of the pumps?
By the way, you can leave your Segway
was the Segway’s narrow track. Lean too far
laterally and you’ll lift a wheel. Then you’ll at the bottom of the pool for 30 minutes. I
fall on your knees or elbows or on a recently already put in a call to Terry Bradshaw. ■
NOVEMBER 2005
DANIEL V. WINTER
JOHN PHILLIPS
purchased six-pack of Stroh’s. Even then,
the Segway senses you’ve screwed up and
turns itself off, waiting to see if you need
either a defibrillator or another peek at the
owner’s manual.
New Yorkers have recently tried to decide
what the Segway is, a vital distinction if it’s
to be allowed on sidewalks. But 44 other
states have classified it as an “electric personal assisted mobility device,” meaning it’s
sidewalk-friendly. Tip: If you’re a pedestrian
about to be rammed by a Segway, just
straight-arm the thing—punch its handlebars
as if punching a shark between the eyes. The
Segway will stop in about six inches,
although its rider may not.
Segway doesn’t release sales figures,
suggesting only that they’ve sold “in the low
tens of thousands” through 90 dealers. Cops
and security guards just love the things,
accounting for one out of every five sales.
Disney alone bought nearly 200. It helps that
the XT offers a ride softer than any bicycle’s,
an upshot of the low-pressure tires and their
saggy sidewalls.
I love the Segway, too. It’s such a
refreshing motoring experience, and silent
mobility is addictive. It doesn’t feel like an
ATV or a scooter or a motorcycle. It feels
like a big, safe, self-balancing skateboard.
Plus, it causes cops to smile.
UPFRONT
Edited by
Tony Quiroga
Ray Hutton England
Peter Lyon Japan
■ Juergen Zoellter Germany
■
■
●
●
●
Audi Arrives Late to the SUV Trough
Q7 has room for seven.
A
udi finally released pictures of the longrumored Q7 sportutility vehicle.
Scheduled to debut at
the Frankfurt auto show in September, the Q7 is Audi’s version of
the Volkswagen Touareg/Porsche
Cayenne platform. Although the
Cayenne and the Touareg have
some body panels in common, the
Q7 has its own distinctive sheetmetal that, at least to our eyes, is
the best-looking of the platform
mates. If there are styling complaints, they’ll probably focus on the
oversize corporate grille.
Under the hood of the Q7 is
Audi’s familiar 4.2-liter V-8 with
direct injection. The V-8 makes 345
horsepower and 325 pound-feet of
torque. That’s more power than the
Touareg’s 310-hp, 4.2-liter V-8 and
the Cayenne’s 340-hp, 4.5-liter V-8.
38
A six-speed automatic transmission
will be the only available gearbox.
Markets outside the U.S. will get a
229-hp, 3.0-liter turbo-diesel with
369 pound-feet of torque.
The Q7 is larger than the
Cayenne and Touareg. A nearly six-
inch stretch to the wheelbase totals
118.2 inches, and overall length is
up by a foot compared with the VW
and Porsche. The extra size goes
toward interior comfort and space,
enough to accommodate three-row
seating and space for seven. Cargo
space behind the third row is
useful; fold the third row, and the
cargo area is cavernous. Secondrow passengers enjoy plenty of
legroom and get a split-folding
bench that moves fore-and-aft.
Front-seat passengers face a typ-
Dave Schembri, a former sales boss for Mercedes-Benz USA who is now front and center in a line of rapidly revolving executives for struggling Mitsubishi, noted in
August that his new employer will unveil six new models over the next 26 months (none of which is a minivan) and then said with an ear-to-ear grin:
“We don’t exactly know where we’re going,
but we’re getting there.”
ical Audi dashboard with MMI
(Audi’s iDrive-like cockpit-control
system). There are also an optional
rearview camera and a lane-departure warning system that will beep if
a lane is crossed without using a
turn signal. Safety features abound,
including the usual cadre of airbags,
stability control, and now trailer stability control, which works with the
stability-control unit to keep the Q7
steady if the trailer it is towing
begins to sway.
The chassis of the Q7 is similar
to that of its brethren: control arms
all around with an optional air suspension. Handsome 18-inch wheels
are standard; 19- and 20-inch
wheels will be optional. When
equipped with the air suspension,
the Q7 will be able to lift itself to
increase ground clearance when
necessary and lower itself to ease
entry and exit. To keep the Q7 on
an even keel, there is a standard
roll-control system. We expect the
Q7 to be a luxurious and competent
handler. Audi claims it has the
driving dynamics of a sports car. We
haven’t driven it yet, but we don’t
expect the handling to set a new
benchmark in the segment, as the
Q7 should weigh in at well over
5000 pounds.
Audi’s familiar Quattro system
will be standard equipment. In
normal conditions, the Torsen limited-slip center differential will send
40 percent of the power up front
while the remaining 60 percent
goes to the rear. Working with allwheel drive is a traction-control
system that will operate in conjunction with the center differential to
send power to the appropriate
wheel when slip is detected. As in
the Cayenne and Touareg, hilldescent control will be standard.
The Q7 will go on sale in January, and we believe it will be
priced between the V-8 versions of
the Porsche and Volkswagen SUVs.
Expect the base version to come in
at just over $50,000.
Truth in Horsepower
A
new voluntary horsepower-testing procedure
developed by the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
has produced some interesting
and perhaps unexpected results
for automakers who’ve decided to
abide by the new rules.
The procedures, revised in
August 2004, mandate several
standards for items such as
exhaust back pressure, engine oil,
and the number of accessories
attached to the engine. Further
revisions add a third-party witness
to oversee the testing procedure
and report the numbers.
Several new GM models that
have undergone the test have
seen increases in advertised
horsepower, although GM isn’t
retesting most of its models. The
2006 Corvette Z06, which was initially touted as having 500 horsepower, went up to 505 horsepower after the test. Similarly, the
2006 STS-V went from 440 horsepower to 469. Toyota and Honda,
which have voluntarily performed
the procedure on their entire
lineup of cars and trucks, not just
the new arrivals, haven’t seen the
same gains as the General. Both
Honda and Toyota were perhpas
chagrined to see their horsepower numbers go down. This
raises the inevitable question,
“Have they been honest in their
claims?”
Here are a few examples of the revised horsepower ratings:
Acura RL 3.5-liter V-6
2005
2006
▲
100
▲
▲
120
▲
▲
140
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
160
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
180
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
200
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
220
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
240
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
260
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
280
▲
300
Acura TL 3.5-liter V-6
2005
2006
▲
100
▲
▲
120
▲
▲
140
▲
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
▲
300
Pontiac G6 3.5-liter V-6
2005
2006
▲
100
▲
▲
120
▲
▲
140
▲
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
▲
300
Scion xB 1.5-liter inline-4
2005
2006
▲
100
▲
▲
120
▲
▲
140
▲
▲
160
▲
180
200
220
240
260
280
▲
300
Toyota Camry 3.0-liter V-6
2005
2006
▲
100
▲
▲
120
▲
▲
140
▲
▲
160
▲
180
200
220
240
260
280
▲
300
39
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
THE DIRT ROAD
Unlock
Unlock
Unlock
the
the
the
Power
Power
Powerbybyby
choosing
choosing
choosing
Castrol
Castrol
Castrol
SYNTEC
SYNTEC
SYNTEC
- -no
-no
no
leading
leading
leading
motor
motor
motor
oil
oil
oil
provides
provides
provides
more
more
more
*
*
*
horsepower.
horsepower.
horsepower.
BERNIE SWINDEMAN
When
When
Whenit’s
it’s
it’sall
all
allabout
about
about
performance...
performance...
performance...It’s
It’s
It’s
all
all
allabout
about
aboutthe
the
themotor
motor
motor
oil
oil
oilyou
you
youchoose.
choose.
choose.
™™™
SYNTEC
SYNTEC
SYNTEC
Delivers:
Delivers:
Delivers:
• superior
• superior
• superior
performance
performance
performance
forforthe
forthe
the
increasing
increasing
increasing
power
power
power
and
and
and
speed
speed
speed
ofoftoday’s
oftoday’s
today’s
engines
engines
engines
• a• aunique
• aunique
unique
formula
formula
formula
that
that
that
helps
helps
helps
maintain
maintain
maintain
horsepower
horsepower
horsepower
bybyreducing
byreducing
reducing
harmful
harmful
harmful
deposit
deposit
deposit
formation
formation
formation
• an
• an
•advanced
anadvanced
advanced
additive
additive
additive
package
package
package
that
that
that
neutralizes
neutralizes
neutralizes
corrosive
corrosive
corrosive
particles
particles
particles
• stability
• stability
• stability
and
and
and
endurance
endurance
endurance
under
under
under
extreme
extreme
extreme
conditions
conditions
conditions
What the hail: After a hailstorm that damaged vehicles
awaiting shipment outside
Nissan’s plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, the carmaker was
encouraged by its insurance
company to find a solution for
keeping cars free from hail
damage. According to Automotive News, to protect the trucks
and minivans that come out of
its factory in Canton, Mississippi,
Nissan is now relying on “hail
cannons.” Each cannon stands
20 feet tall and fires a blast of
sound that is created when
acetylene gas is lit by a spark
plug. The noise of the exploding
acetylene is supposed to keep
the hail from forming by moving
around the drops of rain to keep
them from freezing into hail.
Unfortunately, Nissan’s neigh-
bors don’t appreciate the explosions from the two cannons that
fire when the weather threatens.
Lincoln shoots two of its
own: The Aviator, Lincoln’s version of the Ford Explorer, not the
Scorsese film about Howard
Hughes, went out of production
on July 30. The truck, which
never really caught on with consumers despite its Navigator-like
interior and exterior styling, was
launched in 2003. Lincoln also
announced that 2006 will be the
last year for its LS sports sedan.
After the LS goes, two new Lincolns, both based on the platform that underpins the Ford Five
Hundred, will debut. One of the
new Lincolns will be about the
size of the current LS, although
the other will be Town Car–sized.
Willie Nelson for czar: If
Kinky Friedman has his way, the
next energy czar of the state of
Texas will be singer Willie
Nelson. Yes, the Red Headed
Stranger, country legend Willie
Nelson. And you’re probably
wondering, who is Kinky
Friedman? Friedman is a musician, the leader of the group
Kinky Friedman & the Texas Jewboys, who is running for governor of Texas as an independent candidate in 2006. If
elected, Friedman hopes Nelson
will help the U.S. and Texas free
themselves from foreign oil by
promoting biodiesel as an alternative fuel source. Biodiesel is a
fuel made primarily of organic
vegetable oil and sometimes
animal fat. We just love what
Willie can do with hemp.
Too much magic bus:
Volkswagen’s next van might
come from Chrysler. Former
DaimlerChrysler honcho Wolfgang Bernhard is now in charge
of the VW brand and is apparently interested in taking a
Chrysler minivan and making it
into something like the Microbus
concept that VW showed at auto
shows in 2001. VW put its original plans for the modern
Microbus on the shelf after it
determined that labor costs and
an unfavorable exchange rate
would render the van too expensive. If the Chrysler is made into
a VW, it will probably not be
ready before 2008.
No, the Village People aren’t back.
Check
Check
Check
out
out
out
SYNTEC’s
SYNTEC’s
SYNTEC’s
superior
superior
superior
performance
performance
performance
atatat
www.castrol.com/syntec.
Check
out SYNTEC’s superior performan
*
*
*
10W-30
10W-30
10W-30
as as
tested
as
tested
tested
vs.vs.
leading
vs.
leading
leading
competitive
competitive
competitive
10W-30s
10W-30s
10W-30s
*
10W-30 as tested vs. leading competitive 10W-30s
■ The Delaware State Police have been declared the bestdressed law-enforcement officers in the country by the
National Association of Uniform Manufacturers. Okay, they
look good, but as you can see, they’ve got nothing on the
late Italian Fascist and ahead-of-his-time metrosexual
Benito Mussolini.
Il Ducebag
himself.
MINITEST
Mitsubishi
Lancer
Evolution
IX Wagon
MASANOBU IKENOHIRA
A new species of
wagon discovered
in Japan.
his simple silver vehicle may
T
look like an average compact
wagon with a few sporty body
panels thrown in to make it a bit
more muscular. That couldn’t be
further from the truth. With the
Lancer Evolution IX wagon, Mitsubishi has wrought a comfortable
five-door family car that, when
pushed to its limits, would put more
than a few sports cars to shame.
As the name implies, this is the
wagon version of the ultra-high-performance Evo IX sedan that recently
debuted. It is the first-ever Evo
wagon, the Evo line having survived
without a wagon since its inception
in 1992. (We’ve only had Evos stateside since 2002.) In Japan, Mitsubishi has added a wagon version
to the lineup for those drivers who
grew up with Evolutions over the
past decade but have now evolved
into family men and women and
can now have their cake and eat it,
too.
From the outside, the wagon
looks almost identical to the Lancer
Sportback, now out of production.
There’s a Volvo-like rear end and a
chunky, heavily vented, sharp-edged
Evo nose. Inside, the wagon doesn’t
really differ from the sedan—grippy
Recaro seats and a Momo steering
wheel put the driver in the right
mood. What really gets one going is
the variable-valve-timing-equipped
286-hp 2.0-liter from the Evo IX
sedan.
It’s the use of the revised engine
that really lifts the wagon’s performance. Bottom-end torque is available earlier in the rev range (about
2500 rpm), and the engine pulls
hard all the way to the 7000-rpm
redline. The on/off turbo lag of the
Evo VIII is largely absent, and the
new car is as happy trundling
around town as it is on a racetrack.
There are three transmission
choices for the wagon: five- and sixspeed manuals and a five-speed
automatic.
When most people imagine a
wagon, it’s likely nothing like this
one. Large 18-inch wheels fill the
fender wells, the chassis is identical
to the one in the sedan, and large
Brembo brakes are in place. The
wagon is also available with the MR
package, which adds lighter wheels
and Bilstein dampers that smooth
out the ride considerably compared
with lesser Evos.
The wagon does get the sedan’s
active and adjustable center differential, but it doesn’t get the sedan’s
“super active” yaw control that
attempts to keep the handling safe
and understeer in check. One engineer we asked suggested that the
cost of the system would raise the
price of the wagon considerably,
but we feel the wagon doesn’t really
need the yaw control. The wagon
has an extra 150 or so pounds over
the rear wheels that balance out the
Evo’s usual front-weight bias.
Corner quickly, and the wagon
turns in fast as the extra mass over
the rear wheels maximizes their
traction, although the frontmounted helical limited-slip differential and the active center differential pull the front end around the
corner. This is quite likely the
fastest-cornering wagon on the
planet. The fact that you can take it
through corners faster and more
easily than just about any supercar
out there makes you feel as though
you’re Colin McRae.
Unfortunately for North
America, the wagon version of the
Evo will not be exported out of
Japan. The 2500 or so wagons that
will be built this year will all stay for
home-market consumption. You
can chalk up another Japanese
rocket that missed the boat.
—Peter Lyon
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5passenger, 5-door wagon
Estimated base price (Japan): $28,500
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled
DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . 122 cu in, 1997cc
Power (SAE net) . . . . . 286 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Transmissions . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed automatic,
5- or 6-speed manual
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in
Length/width/height . . . . . 179.9/69.7/58.3 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3450 lb
Performance ratings (C/D est):
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8–5.5
Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5–14.5
Projected fuel economy (C/D est):
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18–19 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . 25–26 mpg
42
NOVEMBER 2005
urns out African killer
T
bees aren’t as deadly
as those over-excitable
Advertisement
TeaseIVrERs
Boutrtobyooun
by CAR and DR
Brough
CAR and DRIVER features
Wild Turkey Bourbon Teasers
Can you name the vehicle that
corresponds with each image? Go to
www.carandriver.com/wildturkeybourbon
to find the answers. You can also
enter a sweepstakes to win a trip to
the 2006 Indianapolis 500.
1
2
Foyt foils bees.
Killer Bees,
My Ass!
jumped from the vehicle and
ran toward a swamp, with a
cloud of bees in pursuit. Stung
repeatedly, he fell, got back up,
and fell a second time before
he finally plunged into the
mud and covered his head.
3
TO ENTER:
Log onto
www.caranddriver.com/wildturkeybourbon
and follow the on-screen instructions.
GRAND PRIZE:
* All expense paid trip for two to the
Indianapolis 500, May 26 – 29, 2006.
Prize package includes: roundtrip
airfare, three nights hotel, race tickets
and more!
RUNNER–UP PRIZE:
* One runner-up winner will receive a
Skip Barber Driving School gift certificate.
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. A PURCHASE DOES
NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING.
VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.
Visit www.caranddriver.com/wildturkeybourbon
for complete rules.
WILD TURKEY® Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey.
50.5% Alc./Vol. (101 Proof). Austin, Nichols Distilling Co.,
Lawrenceburg, KY ©2005 Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.
Uncompromising people drink responsibly
and remember, never drink and drive.
reporters on ABC’s Primetime have led us to
believe. A rancher in Texas
unwittingly uprooted a
hive of them while
clearing land and was
stung more than 200
times. And how’s this for a
nightmare? At least 161 of
their stingers were
removed from his face
and lips. The man not
only lived to tell, he
declined to check into a
hospital.
Oh, sorry—we said
man, as in standard-issue
Homo sapiens. The victim
of the bee attack was not
a man; it was A.J. Foyt,
four-time winner of the Indianapolis 500, now 70.
National Speed Sport
News wrote that Foyt was bulldozing land on his ranch when
he dug up the bees’ nest.
Stung numerous times, Foyt
The paper said Foyt
wouldn’t go to the hospital but got help from
paramedics at the scene.
Foyt said it was the
first time he’d been “in a
situation where I didn’t
know what to do or how
to get out of it.” The cloud
of bees was “the spookiest
thing I’ve ever been in,”
which apparently includes
the Dean Van Lines Special he drove to 16th place
at his first Indy 500 in
1958.
“I was probably a fool,
and my doctor jumped all
over me saying, ‘You’re
crazy, A.J.’ I said, ‘Well,
nothing new.’ If I was
going to die, it was going
to be under a pretty little
oak tree, not in some damn
hospital.”
Foyt did concede that the
stings “hurt pretty badly.” For a
moment or two. We’d do anything for a picture of him the
next day, but no such luck.
Form Follows
Fisker
Fisker Latigo
A
fter drawing cars for
BMW, running Aston
Martin design, and
heading up Ford studios in
London and Irvine, California,
Henrik Fisker wanted out.
Fisker Coachbuild, which
opened in January in Irvine,
plans to attach Fisker-designed
body panels and interior trim
to BMW and Mercedes-Benz
cars starting in mid-2006.
Fisker hopes to build 150
copies each of his $197,000
M6-based Latigo coupe and
$253,000 SL55 AMG–based
Tramonto roadster. Fisker
believes there’s a market for
ultra-exclusive bodywork, now
that traditional tweedy brands
such as Aston Martin and
Bentley are cranking up their
volumes. The Danish-born
designer likens the operation
to the bespoke coachbuilders
Fisker Tramonto
of the flapper era that put
exotic bodies around proven
engines and chassis. On his
first two cars, Fisker changes
every exterior panel and light
cluster. A network of suppliers
will make Fisker’s new steel,
aluminum, and carbon-fiber
panels. Any performance
upgrades ordered by the customer will be supplied by
Kleemann of Denmark. Paint
and interior trim—including
natural, untreated cowhide—
are up to the buyer, although
Fisker offers a basic palette.
Assembly time should take
two-and-a-half months after
the customer buys the donor
car at his or her local dealership.
—Aaron Robinson
NOVEMBER 2005
MAKE THE WORLD’S
BEST SHAVE
EVEN BETTER
Frustrated by golf?
Try country-club racing.
BY ANDY MIKONIS
acetrack-design guru Alan
Wilson believes the next big
thing in the motorsports world is
the country club. In the U.S., Virginia International Raceway may
have pioneered the idea of a
racing country club, but Wilson
thinks his latest baby, the recently
opened Autobahn Country Club
near Chicago, will be the one that
gets copied.
“It’s not so much the track
design but the business model
they’ll be looking at,” says Wilson,
admitting most of his future business is already wrapped up in
country-club tracks.
Autobahn is located at the
edge of Joliet, Illinois, the unwitting racing capital of the region.
Fifty miles from the Sears Tower,
down a country lane and nestled
between working farms, this very
special country club is as hard to
find as the Bat Cave, yet within
earshot of Chicagoland Speedway, home to a NASCAR race,
and the Route 66 Raceway drag
strip. Autobahn has space for 300
club members and is confident
that new members will be willing
to pay the $20,000 initiation fee
and the $3000 annual dues. In
return, they’ll get six days a week
of track time.
“At 3.56 miles, we’re the
third-largest road-racing course
in the country,” claims founder
and president Mark Basso. “Road
America is four miles, but we
have 24 turns versus its 14.” Since
there’s nary a hill for 100 miles,
the track lacks any significant elevation changes, so Wilson
worked to make the track tricky
in other ways.
© 2005 The Gillette Company
R
INTRODUCING
MACH3 COMFORT GEL
®
Specifically formulated to
partner with MACH3 technology
for the world’s best shave.
Gillette
®
The Best a Man Can Get
“The tricks are in the shapes
of the corners,” he says, “and the
corner groupings. There are very
few individual corners.” Enter a
corner wrong, and you’ll likely
find yourself out of line two turns
later. “It’s a difficult track to learn,”
adds Wilson. “You’re going to
have to drive it over and over, but
that fits in with the country-club
idea.”
That circuit can also be
divided into two separate tracks.
There’s the 1.46-mile-long north
track with 9 turns and the 2.10mile-long south track that boasts
15 corners. On the south circuit
there’s an 1844-foot straightaway,
more than a third of a mile long.
When the entire track is in use,
the straightaway is two-thirds of
a mile long (3521 feet). Nonmember enthusiasts can rent a
portion of the track six days a
week, and club members get
unlimited use of the other half.
On Mondays the full 3.56-mile
course can be rented. To ensure
that members have good access,
the full track will be open to them
for three weekends during the
seven-month season.
Track designer Wilson keeps
the course safe by building in
plenty of room to run off just
about everywhere. “It was not
originally intended to hold racing
events,” he says, even though an
SCCA regional and other sanctioned races are already booked.
“It’s primarily a track for club
members to have fun and go as
fast as they are comfortable.”
Although he claims the character of the track itself wouldn’t
be much different if it had been
designed for competition, the
country-club concept allowed the
track to sprawl out like a golf
course over the 320-acre parcel
of land without consideration for
spectator facilities and parking.
For now, the members
mingle with the renters in an
interim clubhouse off the paddock area. After a 0.8-mile kartand-autocross track is built, a
members-only clubhouse of
20,000 square feet is to go up.
Basso speculates the club will
cost between $15 million and $20
million. Although only three are
operational today, several racing
country clubs are being developed in California, New Hampshire, Texas, Minnesota, Kansas,
and Pennsylvania. Could racing
be the new golf?
TM
NOVEMBER 2005
D.V. WINTER
w w w. b o s c h u s a . c o m
Is there a system
that helps maintain
vehicle stability
—automatically?
Yes
The BMW X5 with
Dynamic Stability
Control. It works
so well, you don’t
know it’s working.
Bosch D S C is the active safety
technology that electronically detects
critical driving situations and assists in
keeping you on course, on any road. It’s
a seamless system that automatically
applies brakes to individual wheels and
can even reduce engine torque to
enhance stability. Whatever your next
driving adventure, it’s good to know that
Bosch DSC is with you all the way.
MINITEST
GMC TopKick C4500 by Monroe Truck Equipment
Hummer this.
ou would think the nearly
countless permutations of
the Chevrolet Silverado and its
twin, the GMC Sierra, would
satisfy anyone’s needs, but
you’d be wrong. For a select
few, even the largest of GM’s
regular pickups isn’t big
enough to tow their
motorhomes and trailers and
boats. Fortunately, GM offers a
pickup version of its seriously
large GMC TopKick and
Chevrolet Kodiak chassis. It’s
not as big as Ashton Kutcher’s
International CXT, but it’s close.
Typically, the Kodiak and
the TopKick are used as dump
trucks, moving trucks, school
buses, and shuttle buses, but
Monroe Truck Equipment of
Y
Monroe, Wisconsin, builds
these over-the-top pickups in
its plant in Flint, Michigan,
down the road from where the
Kodiak and TopKick chassis roll
off the assembly line. About
750 of the beasts are built
annually.
The TopKick that was sent
our way was a C4500 crew cab
with four-wheel drive, the least
beefy of the available chassis.
The optional four-wheel drive
was new for 2005 in the pickup
version. Pickups can be had in
C4500 or C5500 garb. The
really heavy-duty C6500 and
C7500 don’t get the conversion. The C4500 and C5500
get the same Duramax 6.6-liter
turbo-diesel that’s available in
heavy-duty Sierras and Silverados, albeit in a lesser state of
tune. A 325-hp gasoline-powered 8.1-liter V-8 is also available. The lone transmission
with the diesel is an excellent
five-speed automatic built by
Allison that shifts smoothly and
quickly.
With 300 horses and 520
pound-feet of torque, you’re
not going to win many drag
races, but the truck has no
problem keeping up with
traffic. The run to 60 mph takes
14.4 seconds, and top speed is
governed at 75 mph, presumably to save the tires when the
truck is fully loaded. The
11,300-pound TopKick is actually faster to 60 mph than an
Bosch. We bring innovation.
NOVEMBER 2005
automatic-transmission four-cylinder
Ford Escape. From a stop, stand on
the throttle, and you’ll experience
the brief hesitation of turbo lag.
Once the turbocharger spools up,
the truck rushes forward with
decent alacrity to the sound of the
optional dual-exhaust stacks that
poke up through the bed. Lower
the windows, and you’ll hear the
chrome pipes belt out a loud
sucking noise that will scare the
“Calvin and Hobbes” stickers off
lesser pickups. Now we’re truckin’!
Monroe dresses up the interior
of the TopKick with thick carpeting,
leather seats independently sus-
pended on air bladders—just like the
truckers use—and faux-wood trim.
Once you work your way up to the
cab of the TopKick, one immediately
notices the panoramic view. Ever
wanted to look down on a Hummer
H2? Better yet, you’ll be able to look
eye to eye with most truckers.
Unloaded, the TopKick will
shake its occupants mercilessly. Two
beefy solid axles with thick leaf
springs up front and air bladders in
the rear make it possible to carry an
astonishing 5000 pounds in the bed
or tow 14,300 pounds, but the truck
will shake and shudder at the
slightest imperfection. Aside from
the ride, the TopKick drives much
like a smaller truck. The turning
circle is tight enough to slip easily
into a parking spot, and the short,
sloped hood gives an excellent view
of obstacles ahead. The 95.9-inchwide TopKick fits in parking spots,
but just barely.
We wanted badly to see how
the TopKick would behave on a
skidpad, so at the risk of wrinkling
the asphalt we circled the 300-footdiameter skidpad at 0.61 g. Not surprisingly, there’s extreme understeer
at the limit. Braking from 70 mph
was drama-free as the TopKick
stopped in 228 feet. C4500 and
C5500 TopKicks have hydraulic
brakes; the larger-series trucks
(C6500 and C7500) get air brakes
that go pfffft when you stop. After
each 70-mph stop, the TopKick
went into a limp-home mode and
wouldn’t shift out of second gear
for about a minute in an attempt to
allow the brakes to cool off.
So what does all this mother
trucking cost? Our four-wheel drive
crew-cab truck cost $52,171 from
GMC, add the Monroe conversion
that contributes a pickup bed and
almost countless options (dual
exhaust stacks, rear-seat DVD,
leather seats, power-folding rear
bench, hitch camera, adjustable rear
air suspension, power-retractable
tonneau cover, aluminum wheels,
chrome grille), and the TopKick can
climb to about $90,000. More-basic
versions can be had for closer to
$70,000, which is far less than a
Hummer H1 and only a bit more
than an H2. Faced with those
choices, the TopKick looks almost
rational.
—Tony Quiroga
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5passenger, 4-door truck
Estimated price as tested: $90,000 (estimated base price: $70,000)
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled
pushrod 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and
aluminum heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . 403 cu in, 6599cc
Power (SAE net). . . . . . 300 bhp @ 3000 rpm
Torque (SAE net) . . . . . 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed automatic
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169.0 in
Length/width/height. . . . . . 265.0/95.9/95.2 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,300 lb
Zero to 60 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 sec
Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . 19.8 sec @ 68 mph
Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . . 75 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . 0.61 g
EPA fuel economy,
city driving (C/D est) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy. . . . . . . . . 8 mpg
Pop. Pour. Protect.
For topping off, nothing’s more convenient than Prestone ® 50/50 Ready-To-Use
Antifreeze/Coolant. No mixing. No mess. Just pop it and pour it for advanced cooling system
protection that mixes with any color antifreeze and goes with any make or model car.
Prestone Protection: Easy to Choose. Easy to Use.
PREVIEW ASTON MARTIN V-8 VANTAGE
A first drive of Aston’s
smallest. And finest.
BY RAY HUTTON
PHOTOGRAPHY BY MIKE VALENTE
veryone agrees: Aston Martins
are gorgeous. They are also
expensive and fast. And usually
lacking in cabin space and complete
reliability. With the V-8 Vantage, which
goes on sale here in January, Ford’s
boutique brand moves a little closer
to the shopping mall. Not that far,
mind, as production is limited to 3000
cars a year and the price will be about
$110,000. As with all gorgeous and
expensive things, whether that represents value depends on your priorities—and your bank balance.
E
52
The British answer to the Porsche
911 is $10,000 cheaper than anticipated in an earlier story (C/D, April
2005) but still costs $30,000 more
than the Carrera S that can beat its
performance.
In a former life, Aston Martin chief
executive Ulrich Bez was responsible
for developing the 1994 Porsche 911
(the 993). Bez plays down the comparison with the Carrera, pointing out
that it’s “impossible for these cars to
be the same price. We will make 3000
a year. Porsche makes 30,000.”
Therefore, you can rejoice in the
more exclusive machine seen here that
shares almost everything—other than
the V-12 engine—with the $164,500
Aston Martin DB9. Bez and his team
have devised a clever aluminum architecture that can be produced in several
sizes. The V-8 Vantage is arranged with
the heavy components as low as possible within the wheelbase, which is 5.5
inches shorter, achieving a balanced
49/51-percent front-to-rear weight
distribution.
The 4.3-liter V-8 engine—Jaguar-
based but built by Aston to its own
specification, including dry-sump
lubrication—sits behind the front-axle
line. The six-speed manual gearbox,
from Graziano in Italy, is located at
the rear, just ahead of the differential.
Bez calls the V-8 Vantage a “frontmid engine” car and is sure this configuration is the most appropriate for
the smallest Aston Martin. It has
plenty of space for two people
(there’s no pretense of back seats for
this one) and reasonable luggage
space on a ledge behind the seats and
in the trunk, which is accessed
through a hatchback.
The accommodations and the
platform components shared with the
DB9 are advantages of this layout, but
the real plus is in the driving characteristics. The V-8 Vantage does everything you would expect a proper
sports car to do. It is responsive, agile,
and stiffly sprung. Well-judged
damping keeps body movement in
NOVEMBER 2005
check. Sharp bumps shake up your
insides, but on a typically undulating
British country lane this Aston keeps
its poise and doesn’t run out of suspension travel.
As you set off, the steering feels
heavy and reluctant to move away
from straight-ahead, but as the speed
builds, the weighting becomes just
right. Through corners fast and slow
the handling is resolutely neutral. The
V-8 Vantage is beautifully balanced.
The 380-hp engine is enough to
give a thrilling ride, even if it is outhorsed these days by a number of
sedans and upscale sports coupes.
Zero to 60 mph should take about 4.8
seconds or a half-second or so longer
than a Carrera S’s time. Eighty-five
percent of the V-8’s 302 pound-feet
of torque is available from 1500 rpm,
which makes for easy and smooth
acceleration in any gear. But there is
a notable step up in power delivery
around 3500 rpm and in sound
NOVEMBER 2005
quality at 5000. Then it makes a glorious crackling noise, like a serious
race car, that at lower revs is subdued
by a flap in the exhaust system to
meet noise regulations.
The gearshift, with its stubby stick
and crisp movements, is good, save
for the occasional difficulty of
engaging first from rest. The brakes,
which have Brembo four-piston
monoblock calipers, need a hefty
push on the pedal to demonstrate
their undoubted effectiveness. A
more progressive pedal would aid
smoother, gentle braking.
Anyone familiar with the DB9 will
notice that major parts of the V-8’s
interior are carried over from the
bigger car. The sharply raked windshield is the same, so are the seats,
the center stack, the switchgear, and
the hard-to-read, finely scaled instruments. The intention had been for the
V-8 Vantage to have cloth seat centers and door trim, but the initial pro-
duction cars will have leather standard, like the DB9. And whereas the
DB9 has a choice of wood veneers for
the deep-sloping center of the fascia,
the V-8 Vantage is finished with aluminum and dark gray plastic.
The doors have the same inner
structure as the DB9’s, but the windows are narrower and have quarterpanels with the mirrors mounted on
horizontal brackets from the frame.
That is to improve visibility, but the
truth is that only forward vision is
good and the driver can’t see the car’s
extremities. In this respect, the V-8
Vantage has sacrificed some practicality for style, but sports cars do that,
don’t they?
You can’t escape the beauty of
this car, and it drives as well as it looks.
No problems showed up in our 300mile drive of a preproduction car,
which suggests—and we say this tentatively—that Aston’s build quality
might have improved. So if you find
the V-8 Vantage irresistible (as we did)
and have $110,000 of disposable cash
(we don’t, sadly), there is nothing for
it but to get in line. Delivery dates for
some countries already extend to
2007—and by then there will also be
a V-8 Vantage roadster to confuse
■
your choice.
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive,
2-passenger, 3-door coupe
Estimated base price: $110,000
Engine type: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum
block and heads, port fuel injection
Torque (SAE net). . . . . 302 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.4 in
Length/width/height . . . . . 172.6/73.5/49.4 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3500 lb
Performance ratings (mfr’s est):
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 sec
Top speed (drag limited) . . . . . . . . . 175 mph
EPA city driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 mpg
EPA highway driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 mpg
53
PREVIEW MAZDA 5
JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
Mazda thinks
the youth market
comes in a box.
BY BARRY WINFIELD
ou won’t be seeing any television ads promoting the new
Mazda 5 six-seater people
mover. Instead, the company is pursuing a careful marketing initiative for
Y
this product, aiming squarely at the
active-lifestyle youth segment in a cobranding program with sportswear
titan Quiksilver.
Mazda reasons that Quiksilver has
PREVIEW DODGE RAM MEGA CAB
The wizard grants a
limo for cowboys.
BY DAVE VANDERWERP
t wouldn’t surprise us if the Wizard
of Oz were pulling levers behind
the scenes at Dodge, directing the
Ram lineup. Why? Dodge’s recent
niche pickups—developed to claim
bragging rights of fastest (SRT10),
most off-road-capable (Power
Wagon), and now largest interior, the
Mega Cab—sound like something a
weakling wizard would do to overcompensate for his lack of powers.
But something had to be done
since Ford sells roughly twice as many
F-series pickups. And with the market
I
54
continually shifting toward full-size
crew cabs, Dodge saw an opportunity
for a cab that makes all others look
the credentials necessary to influence
a youth market that won’t be told
what to buy unless told by opinion
leaders it can trust. And who more
trustworthy than the purveyors of
like Munchkins.
Dodge engineers started out with
the company’s 160.5-inch-wheelbase
heavy-duty chassis from the Quad
Cab long-box pickup. Then they
subbed in the six-foot, four-inch bed
instead of the eight-footer, leaving 20
inches with which to stretch the cab.
Front-seat dimensions are identical, so the rear grew vastly. Back-seat
space is up 12 cubic feet to 69 total,
due largely to a 7.5-inch legroom
stretch. Also new are a reclining rear
seat and eight cubic feet of storage
space behind the back seats. Passengers more than six feet tall will have
high-price leisurewear? So this inexpensive six-seater is being introduced
in relatively small numbers with
modest print and Internet publicity
alongside appearances at key outdoor
no problem stretching out in the back.
The Mega Cab body style is available in 1500, 2500, and 3500 models
in either mid- or high-level trim
(known as SLT and Laramie)—there’s
no entry-level ST as with other Rams.
Powertrain choices are the 345-hp,
5.7-liter Hemi with a five-speed automatic or the 325-hp, 5.9-liter inlinesix turbo-diesel with a six-speed
manual or four-speed auto. The 1500
is Hemi only, the 2500 comes with
either engine, and the 3500 is diesel
only. All models can be two- or fourwheel drive.
Prices start at $32,760 for a 1500
two-wheel-drive SLT (a $1560 premium over an equivalent non–Mega
Cab Ram) and stretch to $48,595 for
a Laramie 3500 4x4.
The ride is quite stiff compared
with that of light-duty Rams such as
the new-for-’06 1500 model, but if
you want big towing capacity combined with huge passenger space, this
■
is the one to get.
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear- or rear/4wheel-drive, 5–6-passenger, 4-door truck
Base price: $32,760–$48,595
Engines: pushrod 16-valve 5.7-liter V-8, 345
hp, 375 lb-ft; turbocharged and intercooled
pushrod 24-valve 5.9-liter diesel inline-6, 325
hp, 610 lb-ft
Transmissions . . . . . . 4- or 5-speed automatic,
6-speed manual
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160.5 in
Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . 247.7/80.0/
74.7–78.7 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6100–7550 lb
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3–10.5 sec
Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6–18.8 sec
NOVEMBER 2005
events. Two Mazda 5s have been—
how should we say?—decorated by
Quiksilver designers and are displayed
at various board-sport contests.
Available as a well-equipped
Sport version or a Touring model
(which adds automatic climate control, front fog lamps, a rear spoiler,
side skirts, an in-dash six-CD changer,
and a power sunroof), the Mazda 5
almost defies description. Somewhat
similar to a Toyota Corolla Matrix in
appearance, it is based on the Mazda
3 platform and powered by that car’s
2.3-liter four-cylinder engine.
Behind two conventional front
doors are two sliding rear doors (with
27.5-inch apertures) providing access
to the center and rear rows of seat
pairs. Although these lightweight
PREVIEW MITSUBISHI RAIDER
A Dakota
dressed to thrill.
BY STEVE SPENCE
itsubishi last sold pickup
trucks in this country in 1996,
a line of no-frills four-cylinders called the Mighty Max. With 116
horsepower, that was perjury, but you
couldn’t beat the opening price of
$11,000. Mitsubishi discontinued the
line, which had included gobs of them
rebadged as Dodge trucks, and fled
the pickup scene.
Now the Japanese automaker is
M
NOVEMBER 2005
back with its new Raider, which turns
out to be a jazzed-up Dodge Dakota
that will open for under $20,000 with
a 210-hp V-6 in two-wheel-drive
mode. Also offered is a 230-hp V-8
model with a tow rating of 6500
pounds. And you can now buy
enough frills to push the V-8’s sticker
to $36,000.
The Raider’s chief distinction over
the Dakota is an interior designed to
sliders are very minivanlike, Mazda
strenuously avoids that terminally
uncool label.
Let’s accept that the resemblance
to a minivan has as much to do with
utility as category. There are some
well-thought-out aspects to the car.
Both the center- and rear-seat rows
fold forward to form a large flat load
surface, and all seats fold for flexible
loading arrangements. Dunno why,
but surfboards come to mind.
There are cup holders aplenty
and even a karakuri storage box in
the base of the right-hand center seat
for small items such as—it says here—
toys. Put that thought out of your
mind. In every other way, the Mazda
5 drives and handles like the sporty
Mazda 3 on which it’s based. That,
make the buyer feel he’s driving
something more fashionable than a
refrigerator, and a bold nose and
flashy flanks that further support that
assertion. Mitsubishi thinks a lot of
SUV buyers could switch to four-door
pickup trucks but won’t bite unless
the thing’s got some style.
The Raider comes with rearwheel- or four-wheel-drive in two
forms: extended cab (with two rear
half-doors) and Double Cab (four
doors, up to six seats). The entry-level
LS’s V-6 comes with a six-on-the-floor
manual or a four-speed automatic,
rack-and-pinion steering, front disc
brakes with rear drums and ABS, and
steel wheels on 245/70R-16 tires. We
like the old-fashioned front bench
seat; flip down the center seatback to
create a two-seater with a console.
Two other trim levels, DuroCross and
XLS, up the options ante. The V-8
counterpart, which should start at
more than anything else, supports the
■
5’s nonminivan pretensions.
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive,
6-passenger, 5-door van
Base price: $17,999–$19,510
Engine type: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 cu in, 2261cc
Power (SAE net) . . . . . . 157 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Transmissions . . . . . . . 4-speed automatic with
manumatic shifting,
5-speed manual
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108.3 in
Length/width/height . . . . . . 181.5/69.1/64.2 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3400 lb
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5–10.0 sec
Projected fuel economy (mfr’s est):
$27,000, gets a heavy-duty towing
package, alloy wheels, bigger tires, a
power driver’s seat, and a Bluetooth
wireless communications link. There’s
a long list of options; we particularly
like the excellent bucket seats.
The V-8’s power feels exactly what
the math suggests: It would benefit
from another 30 horses (available on
the Dakota), as it has only 9.5 percent
more than the V-6 (but it does have
290 pound-feet of torque to the six’s
235). The truck has a pleasantly
smooth, compliant ride on freeways,
with a minimum of body lean and
■
bounce over country roads.
Vehicle type: front-engine; rear-, rear/4-, or 4wheel-drive; 4–6-passenger; 2+2- or 4-door
truck
Estimated base price: $20,000–$30,000
Engines: SOHC 12-valve 3.7-liter V-6, 210 hp,
235 lb-ft; SOHC 16-valve 4.7-liter V-8, 230 hp,
290 lb-ft
Transmissions . . . . . . 4- or 5-speed automatic,
6-speed manual
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.3 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4350–4950 lb
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6–9.5 sec
Projected fuel economy (mfr’s est):
EPA city driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–17 mpg
HIGH-SPEED PREVIEW BUGATTI VEYRON 16.4
The fastest and most expensive
production car ever.
BY CSABA CSERE
PHOTOGRAPHY BY ACHIM HARTMANN
58
hen you’re ripping
along at 253 mph,
your mind is not
drifting aimlessly.
Your senses are
cranked up to full volume to detect
any hint of impending catastrophe in
the maelstrom of wind rush, tire
thrum, mechanical thrash, and
exhaust roar that surrounds you.
Is that slight shift in the whistling
wind caused by a body panel coming
loose? Does that vague vibration
signal a tire starting to delaminate?
Does that subtle new mechanical
whine presage a failing bearing that’s
about to lock up the powertrain?
No such problem developed on
the Bugatti Veyron 16.4, because it is
not a half-baked aftermarket or boutique road burner. It is a production
car developed and tested to the standards of Volkswagen, Bugatti’s parent
company. With a top speed of 253
mph, it is also the fastest production
car ever built.
Production, of course, is a relative
term. In the case of the Veyron,
Bugatti plans to build only about 50
cars a year at a price of €1 million,
which is about $1,250,000 as this is
written. To this rarefied market Bugatti
has brought an unusual level of
W
sophistication and engineering necessitated by the promise of 1001 metric
horsepower (or 987 American
horses) and a top speed of 252 mph,
a pledge from former VW boss Ferdinand Piëch when he unveiled the
production-intent Veyron at the 2001
Geneva auto show.
Achieving 1000 horsepower in a
racing engine is one thing, but to do
so in a reliable, refined, durable, and
emissions-legal configuration is much
harder. The energizer in the Veyron is
a WR16 displacing 7998cc and turbocharged with 15.8 psi of boost. You
can think of it as two Passat WR8
engines put together and pumped up
by four turbos.
But the Bugatti engine has more
cylinders, more displacement, more
power per liter, and more output
overall than any other engine in the
WR family tree. When I ask Bugatti
development boss Wolfgang
Schreiber to explain how the same
engine can be rated at 1001 SAE net
horsepower at 6000 rpm for the U.S.
but only 987 horsepower (1001 PS)
for Europe, he laughs, saying, “The
production engines are all putting out
between 1020 and 1040 PS—enough
to cover both promises.”
The engine’s torque peak is
59
equally mighty at 922 pound-feet,
developed between 2200 and 5500
rpm. The four small turbos minimize
throttle lag, and the 9.3:1 compression ratio ensures reasonable torque
even before boost develops.
All that twist required a dedicated
transmission. The Veyron gets a King
Kong seven-speed version of VW’s
twin-clutch gearbox, called DSG. Like
the DSG available in the Audi TT, it
operates with an automatic mode or
a full manual mode via paddle
shifters. Because gearchanges occur
with one clutch disengaging as the
other engages, shifts are uniformly
smooth and swift.
With about as much engine
output as two Corvette Z06 V-8s, it’s
no surprise that Bugatti engineers
decided to go with all-wheel drive. We
don’t have many details about the
driveline, but the front-to-rear torque
split is automatically adjusted to suit
dynamic conditions and can range
from 100 to 0 percent at either end.
An engine—particularly a turbo-
charged one—that develops four-digit
power throws off more heat than a
dozen pizza ovens. Consequently, in
the nose of the Veyron are three
coolant radiators, one heat exchanger
for the twin air-to-liquid intercoolers,
and two air-conditioning condensers.
There are also transmission and differential oil coolers on the right side
and a large engine-oil cooler in the
left-side air intake. To help heat
escape from the engine compartment, the big WR16 sits
in the open, enclosed
by no cover of any
kind. This powertrain
propels the 4300pound Veyron as
effortlessly and gracefully as Tiger Woods
belts a 300-yard drive.
My experience with
Veyron interior is beautifully
finished. Central air vent is
set into edge of engineturned panel. Note power
gauge at lower left (above).
the car took place at Ehra-Lessien in
Germany, Volkswagen’s test track and
high-speed theme park not far from
VW headquarters in Wolfsburg. At
least it will soon become a theme
park because Bugatti plans to let
Veyron owners bring their cars to this
13.0-mile circuit to explore the top
speed of their cars. In addition to
finding out how fast the Veyron can
go, I was a guinea pig for this ultimate
high-speed thrill ride.
We started with two familiarization laps to get a feel for the track and
the car. The track is simple, with a pair
of high-banked, 150-mph corners
connected by two five-mile-long
straights—one of which has a slight
bend so that it touches a common
parking area.
With the Veyron’s high beltline, I
Normal mode (top) presents max ride
height and a clean body. Handling mode
(middle) drops the body and extends the
rear spoiler and wing. Top-speed mode
(bottom) hunkers even lower and leaves
just a bit of wing showing. When braking in
the handling mode, the wing tilts up even
more to increase drag and rear downforce.
NOVEMBER 2005
couldn’t see any of the front bodywork from the driver’s seat, but the
view of the pavement immediately in
front of the car is excellent. The driving
position is comfortable, with a snug
sport seat that provides great lateral
support and manual fore-and-aft and
seatback-angle adjustments (a
plusher power seat will be optional).
Even after it was lowered to my
preferred position, the steering wheel
did not obstruct my view of the instrument cluster. And despite the Veyron’s
low, 47.5-inch height, there was plenty
of clearance between my helmeted
head and the headliner. Schreiber
promises the car will accommodate
drivers as tall as six foot seven.
Although the Veyron idles with a
quiet murmur, as soon as it starts
rolling you hear a symphony of
mechanical music that gives way to
tire thrum when you get above 100
mph, which doesn’t take long. We had
no opportunity to perform acceleration testing, but the ease with which
the Bugatti blows past that speed is
astonishing. We predict about six seconds flat from a dead stop.
What’s more, the acceleration
doesn’t slacken when you hit tripledigit speeds. In my first lap, I took the
car up to about 185 mph, at which
point the tire noise was fairly loud but
the Veyron was otherwise calm and
relaxed. One reason it felt so secure
is that when you hit 137 mph, the
Bugatti hunkers down, lowering its
normal ride height of 4.9 inches to 3.1
in front and 3.7 in the rear. At the
same time a small spoiler deploys
from the rear bodywork and a wing
extends about a foot, perched at a sixdegree angle. Two underbody flaps
ahead of the front tires also open up.
This configuration produces substantial downforce—about 330 pounds in
front and 440 in the rear at 230 mph.
Given that it only takes about 500
horsepower to overcome the prevailing drag at 185 mph, that leaves
the 500 horses remaining for acceleration duty. So when you plant your
right foot at 185, the Veyron’s surge
of power shoves you into the driver’s
seat about as hard as a Corvette’s
does at 100 mph, or a Ford Five Hundred’s does at 40 mph. Accelerating
from 185 to 230 on my next lap didn’t
take very long, and the car remained
glued to the pavement, although wind
roar overcame tire thrumming to
become the predominant sound.
But 230 mph is about as fast as
the Veyron will go until you put the
car into top-speed mode. This
involves coming to a stop and, while
the car is idling, turning a key in a lock
on the floor to the left of the driver’s
seat. When you do that, the car sinks
down even lower on its suspension,
until ground clearance has been
reduced to a mere 2.6 inches in front
and 2.8 in the rear. This setup also
causes the front underbody flaps to
close and the rear spoiler and wing to
retract, although the wing remains
tilted out of the body at a slight twodegree angle. These changes reduce
the car’s drag coefficient from 0.41 to
61
Next Up:
A Bugatti to
Turn a Profit
ven at $1,250,000, the Veyron is
not expected to earn a dime of
profit for Bugatti when development and tooling costs are counted
up. But this outrageous 253-mph
supercar will certainly put the
Bugatti name back on the automotive map in a big way and will set
the stage for future Bugatti models
that will be less ambitious, less
RON WEICKART
E
expensive, sell in higher volumes,
and perhaps make money for the
marque.
In an interview in the German
magazine Auto Motor und Sport,
Thomas Bscher, the head man at
Bugatti, has conceded the Veyron
is “only an investment in the
marque. We will make no money
from it. That must come from a new
model.”
Bscher envisioned a small
Bugatti sports car—two doors, four
seats—costing perhaps €100,000
($125,000), with a production run
of maybe 2000 vehicles a year. The
new model “would use components from the VW Group,” he
added, “possibly from Bentley
even, where a small car will not be
competing with the Bentley cars.
The new Bugatti may be fitted with
0.36, and they reduce the peak downforce from 770 to 120 pounds.
Before proceeding further, the
driver is urged to verify visually that
all these aerodynamic changes have
taken place, as well as to check the
pressure in the special Michelin PAX
System Pilot Sport tires and inspect
them for any damage. Developing
tires that could withstand 250-plus
mph while supporting up to 4800
pounds of car, occupants, and downforce was one of the major technical
challenges of the Veyron, and judging
by the comparative lack of concern
about the tires during my run, I’d say
this problem has been solved.
Beyond this suggested checklist,
there are a few catches in the procedure that will make it hard to perform
Polished aluminum intakes
feed, in order, air cleaners,
turbos, intercoolers, and intake
manifolds.
a VW engine.” Should such a new
model arrive for 2008, Bugatti predicts the company would be
making a profit the following year.
That will make for an unconventional Bugatti lineup, with one
model costing about 10 times as
much as the other one. It will also
make Bugattis both cheaper and
more expensive than the other
ultra-luxury marques in the Volkswagen fold, Bentley and Lamborghini. These marketing problems will likely prove more
challenging than the actual design
and engineering of the new, highervolume Bugatti.
—CC
a top-speed run on public roads.
Once the Veyron exceeds 35 mph, if
you turn the steering wheel more
than 90 degrees, or so much as touch
the brakes, the car’s configuration
reverts to the handling mode.
The reasons for this became clear
during my first top-speed lap. With
downforce reduced, the Veyron no
longer cut through the air like some
hyperkinetic fastball. Instead, it meandered slightly, something akin to a
swift knuckle ball.
I barely touched the car’s topspeed governor that was set at 253
mph (407.5 kilometers per hour) on
that first lap, but on the second I held
the car there for at least three of the
back straight’s five miles. The combination of driveline noise, tire noise,
Underbody flaps in the
nose open to relieve air
pressure that builds up
ahead of the front tires.
Titanium exhaust has
four tailpipes: two in
the central outlet,
two in the diffusers.
The seven-speed DSG sits
ahead of the engine in
Lamborghini Murciélago
00
fashion.
Suspension has control arms as well
as conventional shocks with titanium
coil-overs in series with hydraulic
ride-height adjusters.
Brakes were tested by 14
consecutive decels from
199 to 50 mph at 0.80 g.
NOVEMBER 2005
The Veyron’s structure combines a
carbon-fiber central tub with a front
aluminum space frame and a heat-resistant
tubular stainless-steel rear assembly.
Most body panels are carbon fiber, except
for the aluminum doors.
and hurricane-force winds rushing
over the car must have been deafening, but I don’t remember it, as I
concentrated on keeping the gently
meandering car within the center of
the track’s three lanes.
The straightaway was only 32 feet
wide, with a low highway-type
guardrail at each edge and dense
forest beyond. One stretch of the
straightaway didn’t even have a
guardrail on the outside of the track,
just a grassy embankment that sloped
up at about 20 degrees for about 30
feet toward the trees. Leaving the
pavement and ending up in the trees
was only a twitch of the steering
wheel away.
Fortunately, the Veyron’s steering
is ideally set up for such fast running.
There’s absolutely no slack on-center,
and the steering responds with a gentleness that makes it easy to feed in
the delicate corrections needed to
keep the Veyron between the center
lane’s dotted lines without overcorrecting. Still, I can see why Bugatti
engineers don’t want their customers
to be passing semis on the autobahn
at 200-plus mph in this low-downforce mode.
When you lift off the throttle at
253 mph, the aerodynamic drag
alone slows the Veyron at 0.3 g. After
running that fast, dropping below 200
suddenly seems utterly effortless. You
could not only hold a cell-phone conNOVEMBER 2005
versation at 185 but also dial a cell
phone at that pace. Allocate some
money to keep an attorney on
retainer if you get one of these cars,
because double and triple the speed
limit will quickly feel comfortable and
normal.
You will likely only experience this
speed in short bursts, which is why
the Veyron’s powerful brakes will
come in handy. The car is equipped
with huge carbon-ceramic brakes:
15.7 inches in front with eight-piston,
four-pad calipers, and 15.0 inches in
back with six-piston, two-pad calipers.
When you step on the brakes at high
speed, the rear wing tilts up to a 55degree angle. At 230 mph, this
increases rear downforce to 1100
pounds and adds as much as 2500
pounds of drag. A panic stop at that
speed produces nearly 2.00 g of initial deceleration—at least 50 percent
more retardation than a Porsche 911
can generate at any speed.
With the top speed verified,
Schreiber jumped into the car to
demonstrate the Veyron’s “launch
mode,” which allows the engine to
light up all four tires in a full-bore
accel run. He promises the Veyron will
sprint from rest to 100 km/h (62 mph)
in less than three seconds. From this,
we would conclude that the car will
likely run the quarter-mile in the high
10s at about 140 mph for another production-car record.
Rational thought runs for its life
when faced with the prospect of a car
costing $1,250,000. But we have satisfied ourselves that the Veyron is the
fastest production car ever built. We
expect it to be the quickest one as
well. It is strikingly attractive, beautifully finished, and brimming with
sophisticated and well-developed
automotive technology.
We’ve never driven any other car
that achieves and maintains high
speeds so confidently and effortlessly.
Veyrons will never be commonplace
and will surely be decorating the 18th
fairway at Pebble Beach within the
next few decades. If any automobile
is worth more than a million bucks,
we’re happy to nominate the Veyron
■
16.4.
BUGATTI VEYRON 16.4
Vehicle type: mid-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2passenger, 2-door coupe
Base price: $1,250,000
Engine type: quad-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 64-valve W-16, aluminum block
and heads, direct fuel injection
Transmission . . . . . . . . . 7-speed manual with
automated shifting and clutch
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.3 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4300 lb
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 sec
Zero to 150 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 sec
Zero to 200 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 sec
Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . 10.8 sec @ 140 mph
Top speed (observed at governor) . . . 253 mph
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 mpg
Steady 253 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 mpg
10 Fastest Production Cars Ever
model
top speed,
year
vehicle
mph
source
2005 . . . . . . . . Bugatti Veyron 16.4 . . . . . . . . . . 253 . . . . . . . . . . . Car and Driver
2005 . . . . . . . . Koenigsegg CCR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 . . . . . independent observer
1998 . . . . . . . . McLaren F1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 . . . . . independent observer
2003 . . . . . . . . Saleen S7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 . . . . . . . at 6500-rpm redline
2004 . . . . . . . . Ferrari Enzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 . . . . . Auto Motor und Sport
1993 . . . . . . . . Jaguar XJ220. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 . . . . . independent observer
1992 . . . . . . . . Bugatti EB110 GT . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Autocar
2002 . . . . . . . . Pagani Zonda S . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sport Auto
2004 . . . . . . . . Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren. . . 207 . . . . . Auto Motor und Sport
2004 . . . . . . . . Porsche Carrera GT . . . . . . . . . . 207 . . . . . Auto Motor und Sport
Most cars and speeds on this list have been verified by magazine tests or other independent observers. The only exception is the Saleen S7, which we strongly suspect
can achieve its sixth-gear redline at 223 mph, especially in the later turbocharged
form.
63
PREVIEW TEST PORSCHE CAYMAN S
Europe on 291 horsepower a day.
BY AARON ROBINSON
PHOTOGRAPHY BY JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
A
sign up ahead reads, “Worms 1000
meters.” I know just how those people feel.
We’ve been ravaging these European highways for about 19 hours and subsisting on a gasstation diet of vacuum-packed tomato sandwiches
and a mysterious starch product called Crispers.
Our supply of cookies is dangerously low, as are
our vitamin E, riboflavin, and pantothenic acid.
Should we really be doing 137 mph?
Most press-introduction drives follow fastidiously planned routes. In this case, Porsche gave us
a brief presentation, tossed us the keys at the factory in Zuffenhausen, Germany, and asked that we
return in 36 hours—with the car. We went straight
to a gas station and bought a book of maps. It had
Europe, Iceland, and a few places in Turkey that
we just might reach if we chose to give up sleep.
Later, we figured out how to operate the Cayman’s
navigation system, so the map book went under
the seat.
For those just returning from the seasonal
whale hunt, the Cayman S is the new hard-hat version of the mid-engine Porsche Boxster—a Boxster
with a hardtop, or mit Kopf as the Germans might
say. It’s also a Boxster mit new front bumper, tita66
nium-colored body accents, and extra body curves.
The Cayman’s hips rise a half-inch higher to meet
the sleek roofline slope. A small ducktail spoiler
deploys upward on struts at 75 mph.
Only big-engine “S” versions of the Cayman are
available for sale at the start. The 3387cc flatsix shares bore-and-stroke specs with the previousgeneration Porsche 911 and dynos at 291 horsepower and 251 pound-feet of torque, 15 more
horsepower and pound-feet than a Boxster S. For
now, all Caymans are being built in Uusikaupunki,
Finland, by Valmet Automotive, an independent
supplier already assembling Boxsters for Porsche.
The Cayman S’s fixed roof and an extra crossbeam
behind the seats make it twice as stiff as the Boxster
S. The Cayman S is also 10 pounds lighter,
according to the press kit. The promise of nominally better performance, insists Porsche, justifies
the U.S. base price of $59,695 (and $69,910 with
our test car’s options). It’s $10,400 cheaper than the
cheapest 911, but base to base the Cayman commands a $5800 whistler of a premium over the
Boxster S. We’re struggling to see why.
We’re also struggling to escape from Stuttgart.
It’s day one, and our initial plan, to beat it south
67
THE VERDICT
Highs: Extra cargo cubes, cheaper
than a 911, as composed on the
Nürburgring as on the autobahn.
Lows: Pricier than a Boxster,
ready for more power.
Verdict: A mid-engine Porsche
for heliophobes.
■ You pay your money, you take your chances.
One ticket to lap the Nürburgring costs $18.70
(right). A one-year pass, $920. Pavement graffiti
won’t tell you which way to go.
into the passes of the Austrian Tyrol, has been scuppered by lousy weather. I’m okay with an epitaph
that reads, “Last seen in opposite lock on a rainslicked and fog-shrouded switchback above
Kitzbühel,” but Russell, our photographer, pleads
for sun. At the moment, blue sky lies only to the
north and west.
We make for the Rhine, the last resting place
of the Franco-German border after centuries of
bloody tug of war. The Cayman takes up a relaxed
residence in the autobahn’s left lane, cruising with
the BMWs and Audis at 110 mph. Its flat-six engine
lives under a carpeted mound behind the seats
and makes a brassy exhaust whine familiar to all
Porsche owners. The background whirring of belts
and accessory pumps and the thrum of meaty 19inch Michelins are noises cooped up by the
Cayman’s roof. The only physical evidence of a real
engine is a small panel in the trunk that flips open
to reveal water and oil filler caps.
Once upon a time, you couldn’t cross into
France’s Alsace-Lorraine region at Baden-Baden
without being lanced, hacked at, cannonaded, or
raked by machine-gun fire. We exit the motorway
into a landscape that rolls and swells with green
postage stamps, the late-summer crops elephanteye high. From every tiny village of half-timber cottages rises a church spire, from every window
hangs a box overflowing with flowers. A white stork
circles lazily in the brightening sky. Packing light
was an unnecessary precaution. Cargo capacity is
an Accord-like 14 cubic feet, split between the front
trunk and the gaping, forward-hinged hatchback.
Leave the Cayman idling while you load bags,
and the twin exhaust pipes fluffle your pant legs.
PORSCHE CAYMAN S
Vehicle type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 3-door
coupe
Estimated price as tested: $69,910
Price and option breakdown: base Porsche Cayman S
(includes $795 freight), $59,695; Navigation package, $3175;
Porsche Active Suspension Management, $1990; 19-inch wheels,
$1940; power seats, $1550; trunk-mounted 6-CD changer, $650;
automatic climate control, $550; rear-window wiper, $360
Major standard accessories: power windows and locks,
remote locking, A/C, cruise control, tilting and telescoping steering
wheel, rear defroster
Sound system: Porsche AM-FM radio/CD changer, 9 speakers
Head- and legroom are ample for six-footers.
Wandering west through the Vosges Mountains
toward Metz, we stumble on a suitably flat road to
run some impromptu quarter-miles. As with other
Porsches, frantic axle hop makes our six-speed
Cayman S tricky to launch (a Tiptronic is available).
The numbers are virtually identical to a Boxster S’s:
60 mph in 5.1 seconds, the quarter in 13.4 seconds at 105 mph. Huge calipers clamp massive
steel brakes (ceramic composite discs are an
option) for 70-mph stops in a brief 147 feet. They
feel touchier than typical ferrous brakes, but there’s
no doubting their stopping power.
Circling the 13th-century Cathédrale Saint Etienne in Metz, we can’t find a suitable hotel. The
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, boasting the highest
gross domestic product per capita in the world
($58,900 according to the CIA Web site—and they
should know) is just up the road. Dotted with
Disney-like castles and bisected by the startling
deep gorge through which meanders the Pétrusse
River, Luxembourg is deluxe.
In the morning we cross into Belgium and head
for Bastogne. Here, in the Arctic-cold December of
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION
Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0
100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2
50–70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 sec @ 105 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . 171 mph
BRAKING
70–0 mph @ impending lockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 ft
FUEL ECONOMY
European urban cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 mpg
extra-urban cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 mpg
combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 mpg
C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 mpg
INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 dBA
70-mph cruising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 dBA
70
1944, 18,000 soldiers of the 101st Airborne were
surrounded by the German Army and hammered
for two weeks without relief. When asked by the
German commander on December 22 to surrender, Gen. Anthony McAuliffe famously replied
in writing, “Nuts!” and signed his name to it.
Patton’s tanks broke through four days later. In Bastogne’s restored village square, near a Sherman
tank with fist-size holes in its hull, you can buy Tshirts and coffee mugs that say, “Nuts!”
We streak across a watercolor painting of
waving wheat, tilled soil, and blue sky, heading east
through the countryside, back over the Rhine, and
into the murky pine forests of the Eifel Mountains.
Destination: the Nürburgring. Porsche burned a lot
of rubber here wringing out the Cayman on the
12.9-mile, 73-turn Nordschleife course. On most
summer weekdays it becomes a high-speed lunatic
parade when it opens to the public at 5 p.m. Deposit
€15 ($18.70) in a machine for a single-lap ticket.
Helmets are not required.
The first harrowing lap is a blur of candy-canestriped curbs, hidden apexes, jumps, and blind
approaches to blind corners. Ahead: slow-moving
Opel station wagons. Behind: Porsche GT3s with
high-beams blazing. The Cayman is balanced, reassuring, glued. Its wheel steers with a natural heft
and direct precision. The front end refuses to plow,
the tail end can’t be shaken from its fat footings.
Little drifts out of the corner are mastered with a
throttle so gentle and controllable that you pick your
tach settings to the rpm. The Cayman never lurches
or bucks, just pours on power in a lump-free surge.
You’ll look like a hero with the standard-equipment
PSM stability control, which needs a lot of prodding
before it starts making minute brake adjustments
to keep the Cayman on course. The first lap ends
in about 13 minutes, the second in a bit over 10.
That’s less awful than I expected. Factory drivers do
it in less than eight-and-a-half minutes.
It’s time to roll south, back to Stuttgart. The
Cayman’s ride is supple, even with firmer springs
and shocks than the Boxster, but the optional PASM
electronic suspension waters down the bumps
nicely. Sorry, Porsche, we still don’t see much
reason to pick the Cayman over the open-air
Boxster—that is, unless you love the Cayman’s shape
or need more cargo space or you just want to save
a bundle over the faster but no more thrilling 911.
But we’re willing to come back to Germany as many
times as it takes to be persuaded.
■
ENGINE
Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flat-6, aluminum block and heads
Bore x stroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.78 x 3.07 in, 96.0 x 78.0mm
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 cu in, 3387cc
Compression ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1:1
Fuel-delivery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . port injection
Valve gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . chain-driven double overhead cams,
4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters,
variable intake-valve timing and lift
Power (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7200 rpm
DRIVETRAIN
Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual
Final-drive ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.88:1
Gear
Ratio
Mph/1000 rpm
Max speed in gears
I
3.31
5.9
43 mph (7200 rpm)
II
1.95
10.0
72 mph (7200 rpm)
III
1.41
13.9
100 mph (7200 rpm)
IV
1.13
17.3
125 mph (7200 rpm)
V
0.97
20.2
145 mph (7200 rpm)
VI
0.82
23.9
171 mph (7150 rpm)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.1 in
Track, front/rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.5/60.2 in
Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.9/70.9/51.4 in
Ground clearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 in
Drag area, Cd (0.29) x frontal area (21.3 sq ft) . . . . . . . 6.2 sq ft
Curb weight (C/D est) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3100 lb
Weight distribution, F/R (C/D est) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48/52%
Curb weight per horsepower (C/D est) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 lb
Fuel capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 gal
CHASSIS/BODY
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unit construction
Body material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . welded steel stampings
INTERIOR
SAE volume, seats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 cu ft
luggage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 cu ft
Seat adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fore-and-aft, seatback angle;
driver only: front height, rear height, lumbar support
Restraint system. . . . . . . . . . . . manual 3-point belts; driver and
passenger front, side, and head airbags
SUSPENSION
Front . . . . . . . . ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs,
anti-roll bar
Rear . . . . . ind, strut located by 1 trailing link and 2 lateral links,
coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING
Type . . . . . rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist
Steering ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1:1–13.8:1
Turns lock-to-lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
Turning circle curb-to-curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 ft
BRAKES
Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hydraulic with vacuum power assist and
anti-lock control
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 x 1.1-in vented and cross-dilled disc
Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 x 0.9-in vented and cross-drilled disc
WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: 8.0 x 19 in, R: 9.5 x 19 in
Wheel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cast aluminum
Tires . . . . . . . . . Michelin Pilot Sport PS2; F: 235/35ZR-19 (87Y),
R: 265/35ZR-19 (94Y)
Test inflation pressures, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37/37 psi
Spare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none
NOVEMBER 2005
ROAD TEST
DODGE VIPER SRT10 COUPE
The reptile
gets a roof.
BY BARRY WINFIELD
PHOTOGRAPHY BY BILL DELANEY
74
I
n an attempt to provide timely coverage of this new Viper coupe, we
drove one away from the press introduction in Monterey, California.
More specifically, we drove it about 500
miles south directly to our testing site in
the high desert to get the numbers you see
here in the spec panel. That’s a long day,
particularly in an ambient temperature of
100 degrees (which may account for the
fractionally slower than expected test figures reflected here). We like to think it’s
all worth it if our readers get what they
deserve.
Turns out we got what we deserved
from this altruistic act, too. We got to drive
the new Viper SRT10 coupe a long way in
the high-speed world of highways and
unpatrolled byways, through canyons and
valleys and alongside the shining Pacific.
After that, trolling the big coupe around in
suburban Los Angeles felt like using a
sledgehammer to swat a flea.
The fact of the matter is the Viper is a
bit of an unruly animal in a city environment, where its grumbling 62-decibel idle
and accompanying tremors are not the
most restful companions at red lights.
Although the shifter in our coupe had lightened and smoothed during the course of
break-in and the clutch was always easy to
use—blessed with a communicative, long
engagement span—the driveline is prone
to an occasional oscillating shuffle in stopand-go traffic that gets so insistent you
have to get on the clutch to quell it.
Some of the noises from the gearbox
are pretty rude, too, at times, and you
wonder if a couple pounds of noise-deadening liner might have helped. But then
you recall driving the car at Mazda
Raceway Laguna Seca, how it ran up the
hill to the Corkscrew hard in third gear, the
V-10 bellowing as its 500-hp rage poured
down the driveshaft and clawed at the
pavement through giant 14.0-inch-wide
Michelins.
The bite of four big Brembo calipers
pinching 14.0-inch rotors had the tail
weaving slightly down the hill into Turn
Two, where the nose would swing obediently into the first of the two apexes. Then
a gradual squeeze on the accelerator (don’t
mash this car’s throttle if you know what’s
good for you) pinned the tail for a big
thrust down the road to Three. There’s
some power-induced rotation available at
the pedal to help the car out of Two, but it
isn’t as pronounced as in the convertible
Viper.
We tried that softtop car by way of
comparison, and although the convertible
is as much fun as ever, it likes to hang out
its tail on the end of the engine’s seemingly
bottomless tide of torque. The similarities
between the two Viper versions are
obvious; the chassis are essentially identical. But the coupe was never a sure thing,
according to SRT director Dan Knott, and
THE VERDICT
Highs: Iconic presence, surprising
roominess, mega-performance.
Lows: Noisy interior, driveline shuffle,
poor fuel economy.
The Verdict: Still heroically antisocial.
the car was, after all, designed first as a
convertible.
So the coupe gained some structural
rigidity when the double-bubble roof went
on, with a negligible change in weight.
Which means the performance ought to be
identical to that of the convertible, with 0to-60 mph in 3.9 seconds and a quartermile in 12.1 seconds. Our car missed those
benchmarks by 0.1 second and 0.4 second,
respectively, but then again, we’ve never
matched those early numbers in more
recent tests of Viper roadsters.
In fact, Knott says the only body parts
the Viper SRT10 coupe shares with the
convertible are the front fascia and the
fenders, hood, and doors. New to the coupe
along with the new canopy and decklid are
the rear quarter-panels, the windshield surround, the door side glass,
the rear fascia, and the taillamps.
The big surprise to this
six-foot-five tester is how
much space there is inside
the coupe. Although the
windshield is close at hand
and short in profile, the
seating feels roomier than
in the convertible, and
there’s enough space to accommodate a
helmet. Perhaps it’s the adjustable pedals
that do it, abetting the already generous
footbox to provide extra dancing room.
Whatever, the roof does not make the
Viper any more claustrophobic than its
topless fellow hatchling. It certainly makes
the car more civilized while commuting
along freeways in 100-degree heat, with
the air-conditioned atmosphere trapped
inside that composite cocoon. And the luggage space is much better than in the
softtop Viper, with an additional four cubic
feet of space. (The convertible has just two
cubic feet under its trunklid.)
Although increased practicality seems
a bit of an oxymoron for a car well suited
to club racing and autocrossing, our trip
down through California confirmed the
friendly nature of the
Viper coupe. With big
gearwheels shrilling along
under your right elbow at
80 mph in sixth gear at
just 1600 rpm on the interstate, the Viper ingests distances with the best of
them. Its noise intensity
may not be at Lexus
levels, but the ride prowww.CARandDRIVER.com
75
DODGE VIPER SRT10
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 3door coupe
Price as tested: $86,995
Price and option breakdown: base Dodge Viper SRT10 coupe
(includes $3000 gas-guzzler tax and $850 freight), $86,995
Major standard accessories: power windows and locks,
remote locking, A/C, tilting steering wheel, rear defroster
Sound system: Dodge AM-FM radio/CD changer, 7 speakers
vided by the long-wheelbase chassis isn’t
bad at all, and I found the seat supportive
and shaped to spread the load in a way that
produced few pressure points.
That same seat—leather clad with a
central suede insert—was not found
wanting for support around Laguna Seca,
where Dodge held the official introduction.
Unsurprising, really, since the Viper is so
much a track animal, but it is a pleasant
surprise to find the seat a comfortable
place to be eight hours and 500 miles later.
That’s in keeping with the rest of the
car’s ergonomics. The wheel is square on
to the driver and tilts to suit his or her style.
Unlike the original Viper, which had offset
pedals, this car’s pedals are dead ahead.
When adjusted all the way down, they
were perfectly suited to heel-and-toe operation by these 34-inch-inseam legs and
size-12 feet.
Add a comprehensive range of legible
white-faced instruments, simple ventila-
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION
Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0
90 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8
100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
120 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2
130 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4
140 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7
150 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —
50–70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7
Top speed (drag limited, mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . 190 mph
BRAKING
HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.98 g
Understeer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . minimal moderate excessive
FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 mpg
C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 mpg
Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 dBA
70-mph cruising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 dBA
*Test car would not accelerate from 30 mph in 6th gear.
76
tion and radio controls, and a center console that has the shifter offset to the left
and the handbrake parked off to the right,
and you have the very model of
ergonomic organization.
But layout is only part of the equation.
The controls have to feel right and deliver
the appropriate responses, and this they
do—mainly. The beefy Tremec six-speed
can sometimes fool you during the
second-to-third shift if you try to force
the pace. If you learn to push the leatherclad knob forward and then allow it to pop
over into the third-to-fourth plane, you’ll
encounter no problems.
We have no complaints about steering
and brake calibrations. The weighting and
feedback levels seem just about right,
helping lend an overall impression of a
car that seems smaller when on the move
than when viewed at rest. Another aspect
of the Viper coupe that bumps its utility
quotient is a short front overhang that
largely cancels concerns about bottoming
the chin spoiler on curbs and badly engineered surface transitions.
For a low-slung car with as many
authentic aerodynamic accouterments as
the Viper has, that’s a welcome development. A low front air dam, a flat bottom,
and an undertail diffuser act in concert
with the Viper’s sleek silhouette and
subtle integral tail spoiler to keep the plot
on the ground at speeds up to its claimed
190-mph top speed.
We didn’t quite get to that velocity
during our drive, but we can report complete stability at 160-plus. For those planning to explore the upper reaches of the
dial, it’s comforting to know the Viper has
Zero Pressure versions of Michelin’s Pilot
Sport tires, which are self-supporting in
the event of a puncture. The car also has
as standard equipment a tire-pressure
monitoring system, seatbelts with pretensioners, multistage airbags, and ABS.
Accompanying this latest generation
of the Viper is the opportunity to select
various options to customize the car,
including the stone-white stripes made
famous by the Viper GTS combined with
various exterior colors, two wheel styles
(a five-spoke and an H-pattern), and interior leather color combinations. Whatever, the $86,995 base model is unlikely
to go unnoticed.
■
ENGINE
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10, aluminum block and heads
Bore x stroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.03 x 3.96 in, 102.4 x 100.6mm
Compression ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6:1
Valve gear . . . . pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters
Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6000 rpm
DRIVETRAIN
Final-drive ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.07:1, limited slip
Gear
Ratio
Mph/1000 rpm
Max speed in gears
I
2.66
9.4
56 mph (6000 rpm)
II
1.78
14.1
84 mph (6000 rpm)
III
1.30
19.2
115 mph (6000 rpm)
IV
1.00
25.0
150 mph (6000 rpm)
V
0.74
33.8
190 mph (5600 rpm)
VI
0.50
50.0
190 mph (3800 rpm)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.8 in
Length/width/height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.6/75.2/48.6 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3400 lb
Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.2/51.8%
Curb weight per horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 lb
CHASSIS/BODY
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . steel-tube space frame
Body material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fiberglass-reinforced plastic
INTERIOR
SAE volume, front seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 cu ft
luggage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 cu ft
Front-seat adjustments . . . . . . . . . . fore-and-aft, seatback angle
Restraint systems, front . . . . . . manual 3-point belts, driver and
passenger front airbags
SUSPENSION
Front . . . . . . . . . ind, unequal-length control arms, coil springs,
anti-roll bar
Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ind, unequal-length control arms with
a toe-control link, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power assist
Steering ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7:1
BRAKES
anti-lock control
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 x 1.3-in vented disc
Rear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 x 1.3-in vented disc
WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: 10.0 x 18 in, R: 13.0 x 19 in
Wheel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forged aluminum
Tires . . . . . . . . . . Michelin Pilot Sport ZP; F: 275/35ZR-18 (87Y),
R: 345/30ZR-19 (98Y)
Spare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none
NOVEMBER 2005
ROAD TEST MERCEDES-BENZ R500
A slick way to
avoid me-tooing
the usual
luxo choices.
BY PATRICK BEDARD
PHOTOGRAPHY BY DAVID DEWHURST
80
J
ust because this loaf-shaped fivedoor defies easy pigeonholing in
the car world circa 2006—“Zat
a minivan or an SUV overcrosser?”—doesn’t mean it’ll be
a tweener forever. Could this be the passenger-car shape of 2016? “Loafing
along” would be a new pleasure.
Yeah, we like the R500, and the womenfolk we hang out with don’t mind
wearing it, either, never mind the similarity of its loaf shape to that of a
minivan. Which just goes to prove once
again that silhouette isn’t everything
when it comes to cars. Having all the
loaf’s space available all the time for
people, or stuff, or your combination du
jour of people and stuff, beats the typical
notchback’s combination of two people
rows and a separate trunk out back.
In fact, maybe silhouette matters
hardly at all to vehicular status when the
package includes a sensuous shape, mus-
cular handling, Ritz-class interior
appointments, and room enough for
triple dating on Saturday night, not to
mention a half-acre of glass in the roof
and all-wheel drive. That adds up to an
easy mobile to like, until you learn the
as-tested price is $71,030.
“Oh!”
If you have to ask the price, may we
show you something in a Chrysler Pacifica, which is the same idea without the
sensuous shape and the muscle and the
Ritz and the standard-equipment allwheel drive, at about half the dollars?
The Pacifica sells well, 92,363 last year,
but nobody raves.
This Benz, on the other hand, is a
charmer. Such an interesting loaf to the
eye, with a rakish hoodline sweeping up
into the windshield that swoops over the
top and trails off toward the tail, all in
one continuous flourish. In profile, the
beltline playfully rises toward the rear as
the roofline falls and the rounded wheel
openings romp below. Has there ever
been a Mercedes this good-humored in
its appearance?
As loaves go, this is a whopper, with
length and width dimensions up there
with the largest of the minivans, give or
take a fraction. Weight outwhops them
all at 5225 pounds for our loaded sample.
The five-liter V-8 outguns them, too, with
302 horsepower and 0-to-60 dashes of
6.5 seconds (buyers on a low-thrills diet
may find the 268-hp V-6 of the lesspricey-by-$7500 R350 more to their
cadence). We held the pedal down and
let the V-8 moan its lusty song to a top
speed of 135 mph, at which point the
governor said, “Enough!”
At low speeds, the Benz has a liquid
response to the throttle, liquid more like
pancake syrup than water, so that it
gathers itself up and moves deliberately
to the command of your foot. You needn’t
worry about unintended lurches from a
hyped-up accelerator as you try to fit the
considerable bulk into a parallel slot.
On the skidpad, the R500 carved
around at 0.75 g with moderate understeer on its 255/55R-18 all-season tires.
Braking from 70 mph required 181 feet,
within the expected range for a car of this
weight.
But what, specifically, can this loaf do
for you that other vehicle shapes can’t?
Passengers get priority here. This is the
people-mover concept taken to a luxo
level, with serious seats for three rows of
two. Sure, big Econoline vans will pack
more commuters off to the airport or
more kids to the scout camp. But the Rclass is about first-class transit for six.
The front and second rows are perfect
enough, with fore-and-aft sliding tracks
and deeply sculpted seating. It’s the rear
that always raises objections, and this
one’s third-row comfort can’t match that
81
COUNTERPOINT
STEVE SPENCE
Bob Newhart is doing stand-up in my head.
“What’s that, Juergen? You wanna sell me a
minivan that’ll go 135 miles an hour? Uh, I
don’t think my kids are in that big a hurry to
get to the soccer game, Juerg. Oh, it’s not a
minivan? It’s a sports tourer? And what’s
that?” Well, it’s very elegant, sports-sedan
powerful, those sliding doors one associates
with “meals on wheels” vans have been
removed, there’s luxurious space for six, and
there are race-car-like shift buttons behind
the steering wheel. What?! Well, what the
hell, maybe there are 20,000 families a year
who’ll sink 56 grand on this transdresser.
Hey, we laughed when Porsche proposed
building an SUV!
TONY SWAN
If it weren’t for the hinged doors, we’d be
calling this the world’s first $71,000 minivan.
But minivan has the cachet quotient of tofu,
and station wagon doesn’t exactly cut it,
either. So like the Chrysler Pacifica, it’s a
“sports tourer.” Hmm. Let’s look at that.
Handling: competent, considering a curb
weight north of 2.5 tons. Braking: ditto.
Power: ample. But I’m left with a big question: Where, exactly, is the “sports” part of
the deal? Maybe it’s because you could fit a
half-dozen NFL linebackers in there. Or a
basketball team. Whatever, sport has to be
something you add, because it certainly isn’t
part of the R-class driving experience.
PATTI MAKI
This is a noisy vehicle. How could I forget the
bloody fob! The “key” warning never seems
to shut up. Parktronic’s warnings are going
off even in the carwash. The seatbelt warning
clanged with my purse on the passenger
seat. Not to mention the birds. The flock of
birds. Apparently, no one in Deutschland
took a spin in a mule with all the windows
down. The weather seals on the leading
edges of the middle-row fixed quarter-windows start chirping at about 30 mph (same
thing happens in the R350). The sound of a
host of sparrows would be hysterical if it
weren’t such a misstep. There was also a
loose trim piece on the floor, at 3273 on the
odo. For $71,030, I want to be coddled, not
annoyed.
82
of the front two. The crunch always comes
in trying to provide legroom and chair-like
cushion height for passengers sitting over
the rear suspension. SUVs take the kickup-the-roof approach, sometimes to
grotesque heights. Have you seen a longwheelbase TrailBlazer? Usually, the goodenough-for-kids standard applies. But this
Benz tries for adult accommodations, and
it’ll get the coach and the starting five to
the game with fewer complaints than any
truck.
Although the Alabama-built R500’s
underpinnings are shared with M-B’s new
M-class SUV, the driving experience is not
at all trucky. The seating is high, placing
your eye about where it would be in a
minivan. The windshield gives a big view
over the rather low cowl. The power
tilting-and-telescoping column and seat
adjuster let you tailor the driving position
exactly to your liking. The suspension has
a deliberate, sure-footed feel, and the
steering knows where straight-ahead is.
We like the new seven-speed automatic.
It’s smooth enough in its gearchanges, and
it skips directly to the ratio it wants at any
given time, so there’s never a sense of shuttling through a seven-pack of speeds. Your
fingers easily reach either of the rocker
switches on the backs of the wheel spokes,
allowing manual shifting. This brings up
a small digit in the shifter display indicating which gear you’ve chosen. Otherwise, only the transmission knows.
It’s a smart transmission, too. It astutely
reads the tempo of your foot motions on
the gas and acts accordingly, quickly hustling up a go gear when you give a punch
or hanging onto the gear it’s got when you
lift abruptly as you approach a corner.
Inside, the seats fold flat, station-wagon
style. The $400 optional second-row console can be attached to the floor in two different positions, one a few inches forward
of the other. You must choose the forward
THE VERDICT
Highs: Sensuous body curves,
sumptuous interior, enough seats
for a solid Supreme Court
majority.
Lows: “Does this make me
look too motherly?”
The Verdict: A people mover
for the movers and shakers.
slot to allow room for folding the third row.
Make sure the second-row buckets are
positioned just right on their tracks so the
third-row backrests lock into the secondrow cushions. The rear passenger doors
stretch way back, giving the R500 a longin-the-loins look; they also open wide for
easy boarding or loading. Or maybe not.
Narrow parking slots are a disaster for
loading kids and child seats, report the parents among us.
Reviews of $71,000 cars often end up
being extended commentary on the
gizmos. If we skipped that topic here, we’d
miss the essence of the R-class. These
days, expensive German cars flaunt their
electro-savvy personalities. This one hits
you first with its half-dollar-size starter
button and follows up with its electronic
toggle shifter: Press the stubby stalk down
for D, up for R, and the button on the end
for P. The lever always returns to center,
signaling your choice only on the “PDR”
display, and only after a pause while the
software wakes up. The turn-signal stalk
on the wheel’s other side works similarly.
The test vehicle’s electro portfolio
included Parktronic ($750), which beeped
a lot during our off-road evaluation. More
on that later. The Airmatic air-suspension
ride control ($1200) includes what seems
84
to be a two-position switch—“sport” lights
the upper indicator, and “comf” lights the
lower. Both of them worsen the ride compared with an unmarked position that
douses both indicators. This is “auto.”
Time and time again it was the best choice.
The R500, in the usual German-car
fashion, has lots of buttons, many of them
flush or nearly so and hard to locate while
keeping your eyes on the road. Most of
them were logical enough with some
NOVEMBER 2005
study, although the tuning system for
Sirius radio was never less than annoying.
One thing apparently not available among
all the wizardry is decent FM and AM
reception for weak stations.
Now for the off-road experience. This
loaf is obviously too low to be a rock
crawler, but the air suspension lifts the
belly just over three inches at the touch of
a button, and all-wheel drive is standard
equipment. Why not see what happens? To
make a long story short, any car-like
vehicle with a 126.6-inch wheelbase is
easily high-centered. This particular allwheel-drive system also allows plenty of
tire slip over grades and loose surfaces.
Really, the R500 is an all-weather road
runner, and Mercedes never led us to
expect otherwise.
Maybe the best thing about the R500 is
what it implies: The auto industry is still
experimenting with better ways of transporting people and their kits and caboodles. A powerful loaf with a leather lining
is a most agreeable mobile.
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION
Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0
90 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9
100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4
110 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1
120 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2
130 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.7
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
50–70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4
Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 mph
MERCEDES-BENZ R500
Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 5-door
wagon
Price and option breakdown: base Mercedes-Benz R500
(includes $775 freight), $56,275; Premium package (includes
Harman/Kardon stereo, glove-box-mounted 6-CD changer,
panoramic sunroof, power liftgate, and navigation), $4400; DVD
entertainment system, $3000; Airmatic air suspension, $1200;
Trim package (consists of full leather seats and premium interior
lighting), $1200; Keyless Go, $1080; multicontour front seats with
air-inflatable cushions, $780; Parktronic parking assist, $750;
Heating package (heated rear seats), $690; Comfort package
(includes auto-dimming and power-folding mirrors), $625; wood
and leather steering wheel, $530; Sirius satellite radio, $500
Major standard accessories: power windows, seats, and locks;
remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting and telescoping steering
wheel; rear defroster and wiper
BRAKING
70–0 mph @ impending lockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 ft
Sound system: Harman/Kardon AM-FM-satellite radio/CD player
and changer, 12 speakers
HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.75 g
Understeer . . . . . . . . . . . . . minimal moderate excessive
ENGINE
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8, aluminum block and heads
Valve gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . chain-driven single overhead cams,
3 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters
Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6400 rpm
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (mfr’s est)
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 mpg
C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 mpg
Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 dBA
70-mph cruising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 dBA
DRIVETRAIN
Transmission . . . . . 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
4-wheel-drive system . . . . . . . full time with open center, front,
and rear differentials;
brake-based traction control
Gear
Ratio
Mph/1000 rpm
Max test speed
I
4.38
5.1
33 mph (6400 rpm)
II
2.86
7.9
50 mph (6400 rpm)
III
1.92
11.7
75 mph (6400 rpm)
IV
1.37
16.5
105 mph (6400 rpm)
V
1.00
22.6
135 mph (6000 rpm)
VI
0.82
27.5
135 mph (4900 rpm)
VII
0.73
30.9
135 mph (4350 rpm)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.6 in
Track, front/rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6/65.3 in
Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.0/77.5/65.2 in
86
Ground clearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 in
Drag area, Cd (0.32) x frontal area (29.7 sq ft) . . . . . . 9.5 sq ft
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5225 lb
Weight distribution, F/R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.6/48.4%
Curb weight per horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 lb
Fuel capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 gal
CHASSIS/BODY
Type . . . . . unit construction with 2 rubber-isolated subframes
Body material . . . . . . . welded steel and aluminum stampings
INTERIOR
SAE volume, front seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 cu ft
middle seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 cu ft
rear seat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 cu ft
cargo, seats up/down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15/85 cu ft
Practical cargo room, length of pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.0 in
largest sheet of plywood, l x w . . . . . . . . . . 85.5 x 44.5 in
no. of 10 x 10 x 16-in boxes, seats up/down . . . . . . . 5/52
Front-seat adjustments . . . . fore-and-aft, seatback angle, front
height, rear height, lumbar support,
lower side bolsters, thigh support
Restraint systems, front . . . . . manual 3-point belts; driver and
passenger front, side, and curtain airbags
rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . manual 3-point belts, curtain airbags
SUSPENSION
Front . . . . . . . . . ind; unequal-length control arms; air springs;
3-position cockpit-adjustable, electronically
controlled shock absorbers; anti-roll bar
Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ind; 1 control arm, 1 lateral link,
1 diagonal link, and 1 toe-control link
per side; air springs; 3-position cockpit-adjustable,
electronically controlled shock absorbers; anti-roll bar
STEERING
Type . . . . rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist
Steering ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6:1
Turns lock-to-lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
Turning circle curb-to-curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.7 ft
BRAKES
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hydraulic with vacuum power assist,
anti-lock control, and electronic panic assist
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 x 1.3-in vented disc
Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 x 0.9-in vented disc
WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size/type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 x 18 in/cast aluminum
Tires. . . . . . . . Continental 4x4 Contact, 255/55R-18 105H M+S
Test inflation pressures, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30/34 psi
Spare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . compact inflatable
NOVEMBER 2005
COMPARISON TEST MEN IN UNIFORM
A ‘Be all you can be’ Commander . . .
BY JOHN PHILLIPS
PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY
t was only last April, in a C/D comparison test dubbed “Destination: Chicken
Point,” that we sampled six size-M
SUVs. Since then, two newcomers have
alighted. Well, not newcomers exactly.
More like face-lifted Hollywood agents
just back from a trying month at Betty
Ford.
In fact, one is a Ford, the comprehensively reworked Explorer, notable not for
its styling—again a say-nothing ode to
suburban blandness—but for its six-speed
automatic and 292-hp, 24-valve V-8, the
I
90
Mustang GT’s engine.
The other new and decidedly angular
face is that attached to the Jeep Commander. You may not know the Commander’s name, but you know the Commander’s dad. What we have here is a
made-over Grand Cherokee, with which
the Commander shares its driveline and
wheelbase. This new model—an adjunct
to the line, not a replacement for the Grand
Cherokee—adds 1.9 inches of length and
4.2 inches of height, allowing it to become
the first Jeep in history with three rows of
seats, an increasingly mandatory sales tool
in the segment. And the blocky styling?
Well, the Jeep guys say they’ve rarely had
a group of buyers more devoted than those
who owned 1984-to-2001 Cherokees, thus
the familiarly retro nose and refrigeratorlike silhouette. Which makes you wonder
why the Commander’s rump resembles a
Hummer’s.
In our “Chicken Point” comparo, the
Explorer finished an embarrassing sixth
among six, mostly because it was then in
its fourth year without a major freshening.
. . . takes on one ‘Be prepared’ Explorer.
Ford Explorer
Eddie Bauer 4x4
■ Jeep Commander
Limited 4x4
■
But in the same test, the Grand Cherokee
—again, the vehicle on which the Commander is based—finished first. Clearly,
these two newcomers deserved their own
middleweight rumble. But instead of reexamining all the major players so soon, we
opted for a more efficient two-ute armwrasslin’ and sand-slingin’ bout in the
horsefly-infested wilds of Michigan.
Which, in C/D-speak, means we again
wound up at the Silver Lake Sand Dunes,
searching for fulgurites, which aren’t prohibitionist missionaries but are, instead,
tubes of glass formed when lightning
strikes the sand. Thing is, if lightning
struck here anytime in August, it would
first melt the helmet atop a sweaty human
head. That’s because all 2000 sandy acres
are seasonally aswarm with whooshing
motorcycles, buggies, ATVs—and SUVs,
whose hard tires and colossal heft make
them as suitable to duning as Michael
Jackson is suitable to babysitting.
For no good reason—well, some beer
may have been involved—we brought
along human representations of the vehic-
ular contretemps to follow. Representing
the Ford Explorer was Explorer Scout
Billy “ ’Bama” Banjo, a hefty and solid
young man who came equipped with
bowie knife, Scout-approved ropes, and an
apparently inexhaustible supply of teriyaki
beef jerky. Representing the Jeep Commander was Commander “Mad Brad”
Lavender—fit, trim, impeccably starched,
and clearly annoyed to be in the company
of juveniles, not so much Explorer Billy
as, uh, us. Scoff if you will at their eccentric struggles, but rest assured that Messrs.
91
2
Ford Explorer
Eddie Bauer 4x4
Highs: Silent cabin, cushy ride,
refined drivetrain, can tow up to
7300 pounds.
Lows: Invisible styling, dilatory
transmission kickdowns, misplaced
throttle pedal, odd driving position.
The Verdict: Hugely improved but
still the most cautious and mainstream of domestic SUVs.
Vehicle
Banjo and Lavender fought heroically and
Homerically, both emerging with slightly
chewed ears.
Second Place
Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer 4x4
For 15 years, the Explorer has been the
top-selling mid-size SUV in America. Sell
5.5 million of anything—tortillas, chicken
elbows, nuclear-powered eggbeaters—and
you tend to cling fiercely to the original
blend of herbs and spices: same body-onframe construction, same risk-free styling,
same Everyman approach to sport-uting.
Blindfold the owner of a ’91 Explorer, set
him in the driver’s chair of this gen-four
edition, and he’d still exclaim, “Hey, it’s
92
interior volume,
cu ft
dimensions, in
base price/
price as tested
length
width
height
wheelbase
track, front/rear
weight, pounds
weight distribution,
% front/rear
towing capacity,
max/as tested
fuel tank, gallons
recommended
octane rating
front
middle
rear
cargo,
seats up/max
# beer cases behind
f/m/r
length of pipe, inches
sheet of plywood,
inches (l x w)
Ford
Explorer
Jeep
Commander
$34,270/
$43,860
193.4
73.7
72.8
113.7
60.9/61.8
5059
$38,900/
$42,075
188.5
74.8
71.9
109.5
62.6/62.6
5263
52.0/48.0
50.7/49.3
7300/7050
22.5
7200/7200
20.5
87
58
49
39
89
60
49
34
14/84
8/69
51/24/5
138.5
49/14/0
136.5
79.0 x 45.0
72.5 x 44.0
Best in test.
an Explorer!” Then, of course, he’d crash.
What you notice first about the
Explorer is its much-reduced levels of
NVH, thanks to new driveshafts, butyl
body mounts, and more effective soundthwarting goo. It’s so serene that you can
hear the tread blocks of the Michelins
squirming in turns. At idle, at full whack,
and at a 70-mph cruise, the Explorer
NOVEMBER 2005
proved less vocal than our Commander, a
blessing on the boring freeway slog to the
dunes.
The Explorer’s cargo capacity and rear
seating also proved superior. The Ford is
0.9 inch taller and 4.9 inches longer than
the Jeep, thus able to haul more cases of
beer. More important, those few inches
rewarded three adults in the second row—
their hips weren’t touching, shoulder room
was ample, and our six-footers never
mussed their coifs. Even the usually
tedious flip-and-fold routine, necessary to
gain access to the third row, was deemed
sufficiently simple for fourth-graders,
which is why we could get back there. So
how come the front-seat footwells are so
narrow, forcing legs against the tunnel and
inner door panels? How could this happen
in any vehicle weighing 5059 pounds?
Perhaps it goes without saying, but 53
newfound horses make an obvious and
gratifying difference. The Explorer now
scoots to 60 mph 0.4 second sooner than
its predecessor and does so with less
chatter and roar. Even so, step-off remains
gentle—far more predictable than the
Commander’s. Just don’t go boasting to
your neighbors about your hot-rod ride:
Top speed has been governed to 98 mph.
The Explorer is fitted with avant-garde
interior door handles and grab bars—the
former too far forward, the latter too low.
Powertrain
Ford
Explorer
type
engine
Jeep
Commander
SOHC 24-valve V-8
pushrod 16-valve V-8
281 (4601)
345 (5654)
power, bhp @ rpm
292 @ 5750
330 @ 5000
torque, lb-ft @ rpm
300 @ 3950
375 @ 4000
6250
5600
displacement, cu in (cc)
redline, rpm
lb per bhp
transmission
driven wheels
gear ratios:1
driveline
After five days of uting, we still had to look
to find them. The bottom of the gas pedal
is too far from the floor, shedding the
driver’s foot. The liftgate requires a major
effort to slam. The chrome trim rings surrounding the air vents and gauges—in
what is otherwise a bright and attractive
dashboard—cast nasty reflections in the
windshield. No driver felt perfectly in sync
with the relationship among seat cushion,
steering wheel, and pedals. And no vehicle
costing $43,860 should ever ride atop
wheels covered in plastic.
Ford’s new six-speed automatic proved
useful—for one thing, observed fuel
economy climbed by 2 mpg—and we soon
learned to summon one-gear kickdowns
when two were unnecessary. But those
kickdowns were accompanied by an
transfer gear:1, L/H
axle ratio:1
C/D test results
acceleration, seconds
topgear
mph per 1000 rpm, L/H
fuel
economy,
sound
mpg
level, dBA
17.3
15.9
6-sp auto
5-sp auto
all
all
4.17, 2.34, 1.52,
1.14, 0.86, 0.69
3.00, 1.67, 1.50,*
1.00, 0.75, 0.67
2.48/1.00
2.72/1.00
3.55
3.73
2.4/5.8, 4.2/10.4,
6.5/16.0, 8.6/21.4,
11.4/28.4, 14.3/35.3
2.8/7.6, 5.0/13.6,
5.6/15.1,* 8.4/22.7,
11.1/30.3, 12.5/33.9
0–30 mph
2.6
2.5
0–60 mph
7.8
7.3
7.6
0–90 mph
17.5
16.9
17.2
1/4-mile @ mph
16.2 @ 86
15.7 @ 87
8.2
7.7
8.0
30–50 mph
4.2
3.6
3.9
50–70 mph
16.0 @ 87
6.1
5.1
5.6
98 (governed)
113 (governed)
106
idle
42
43
full-throttle
73
74
74
70-mph cruise
66
68
67
43
EPA city
14
14
14
EPA highway
20
19
20
C/D 900-mile trip
16
13
*This ratio is only used during kickdowns from higher gears. Best in test.
94
2.6
rolling 5–60 mph
top speed, mph
unseemly wait. Powering out of tight turns
became an exercise in prophesying.
On our handling loop, the Explorer
always felt tall and tippy. It wasn’t, actually, but the perception was enhanced by
an aggressive stability-control system that
kept reminding the driver he’d exceeded
Dearborn’s predetermined limits of festive
roll and yaw.
We humped the Explorer through some
mild off-roading routines—mild because
this SUV came with no skid plates. The
Ford didn’t quite demonstrate the lusty
climbing genes of the Jeep, in part because
it didn’t possess the Hemi’s low-down
grunt. But the Explorer’s cushy ride and
rigid, rattle-free platform made its cabin a
far, far more agreeable locale when the
roads vanished. Lateral head toss, in particular, was virtually nonexistent. In fact,
the Explorer’s ride surpassed the Commander’s on every surface we sampled, a
happy side effect of its nontaxing IRS.
Add to the Explorer’s many upgrades
its revised steering—a little lighter, more
linear, and more disciplined about
tracking, especially in crosswinds—and
this bumper-to-bumper remake deserves
applause. Still, whenever you’re driving
the Explorer, you’re ever aware it’s a
truck—a refined truck, but still a truck.
Nowhere is this more evident than in
traffic, where it is a smidgen slow-witted
15
Test Avg
NOVEMBER 2005
1
Jeep Commander
Limited 4x4
Highs: Hemi power, near-perfect
driving position, retro styling.
Lows: Gun-slit windshield, dismal
mileage, cramped third-row seat,
numb steering.
The Verdict: A 5263-pound Jeep
Grand Cherokee with theater seating.
and awkward. In all other respects, this
SUV evinces a perplexing characterlessness. It’s like trying to coax Al Gore to recall
his first sexual caper. There may be a zesty
story lurking within, but your chances of
unearthing it are slim.
First Place
Jeep Commander Limited 4x4
All the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s most
cherished traits—among them its hale 330horse Hemi—are accurately reflected in the
Commander. Plus, the Commander offers
16 exposed allen screws on the dash and
20 more on the fender flares. Manly, dude.
Fact is, the Commander is 38 horsepower manlier than the Explorer, and those
ponies begin stampeding at lower revs—
which bestows the Jeep with a 0.5-second
edge in the 0-to-60 dash. That also makes
the Commander 0.9 second quicker than
Chassis
front suspension
rear suspension
front brakes
rear brakes
anti-lock control
stability control
tires
Ford
Explorer
Jeep
Commander
control arms,
coil springs,
anti-roll bar
multilink,
coil springs,
anti-roll bar
vented disc
disc
yes
yes
Michelin
Cross Terrain,
P235/65R-18 104S M+S
194
control arms,
coil springs,
anti-roll bar
rigid axle,
multilink, coil
springs, anti-roll bar
vented disc
disc
yes
yes
Goodyear
Fortera HL,
P245/65R-17 105S M+S
203
C/D test
results
braking, 70–0, feet
roadholding,
300-foot skidpad, g
0.71*
0.73
lane change, mph
54.3*
53.8
*Explorer stability-control system cannot be completely disabled, which can
affect skidpad and lane-change numbers. Best in test.
NOVEMBER 2005
199
0.72
54.1
Test Avg
95
Off-Road
Capability
transfer case/
center-diff type
rear-diff type
hill descent
hill holder
skid plates
minimum ground
clearance, inches
approach angle,
degrees
departure angle,
degrees
Best in test.
96
Ford
Explorer
full-time 2speed/
limited slip
with auto
locking
open
no
no
no
Jeep
Commander
full-time 2speed/
limited slip
with auto
locking
limited slip with
auto locking
no
no
yes
8.2
8.6
28.2
34.0
23.8
27.0
vehicle
shivers, wonks, clomps, and grunts as the
suspension worked through its considerable travel. The Commander always complained that it was working harder than it
was—including plenty of pushrod engine
roar—while the Explorer just kept its
mouth shut.
Overall, the Commander felt more connected to terra firma and was slightly more
gratifying to drive than the Explorer—a
little like saying one of the Bush twins parties slightly less than the other. And the
Jeep at least made an attempt, however
pale and old-fashioned, at distinguishing
itself stylistically. But it sure is a big ol’
dog—5263 pounds and 21 inches longer
than the extinct Cherokee it so earnestly
hopes to mimic. If you’re searching for the
sensitive, agile responses of, say, the carbased SUVs—the Toyota Highlander and
the Honda Pilot come fleetingly to mind—
you won’t find ’em here. Of course, those
“Miller Lite” SUVs can’t tow 7200
pounds, as can the Commander, nor do
they feel as unbreakable in the dirt.
Unless you’re conducting some “difficulty eight” off-roading, neither of these
SUVs is much fun. If your goal is simply
to seat seven, buy a minivan. A Honda
Odyssey is quicker to 60 mph than the
Explorer, has a higher top speed than either
of these SUVs, is quieter at idle, offers
better fuel economy, outgrips both, is faster
through our lane change, includes steering
with actual feel, affords easier access to
driver comfort (10)
ergonomics (10)
middle-seat comfort (5)
middle-seat space* (5)
rear-seat comfort (5)
rear-seat space* (5)
cargo space* (5)
features/amenities* (10)
fit and finish (10)
interior styling (10)
exterior styling (10)
rebates/discounts* (5)
as-tested price* (20)
total (110)
Ford
Explorer
7
7
4
5
3
5
5
9
8
8
6
2
19
88
Jeep
Commander
9
9
4
5
2
4
3
10
8
7
7
2
20
90
powertrain
Results
performance* (20)
engine flexibility* (5)
fuel economy* (5)
engine NVH (10)
transmission (10)
total (50)
18
5
5
8
7
43
20
5
3
7
8
43
chassis
the average size-M ute in our April comparo. The downside is slightly jarring stepoff and observed fuel economy of—
whoa!—13 mpg. Stupid, dude. Marry a fat
lady and you gotta buy her groceries.
The Commander instantly earned
points for its wide and roomy front seats,
its control relationships, and its agreeable
arms-out driving position. The front
footwells proved more spacious, too. Then
it lost points for its constricted third-row
seat. The uneven floor made it tricky to
climb back there, and “climb” is the correct descriptor. Third-rowers sit with their
heads jammed into the 3.2-inch step in the
roof, and their view of passing scenery is
scant. Come to think of it, the driver’s view
isn’t so vast, either, limited by the stubby,
upright windshield. Retro design comes at
a price.
The Commander’s steering is a hair too
lazy off-center and more or less numb
thereafter. Truth is, neither of these trucks
offers anything like true road feel. On the
ballot to rank steering, one editor
eschewed numbers and simply wrote,
“Some.”
But there were pleasant surprises, too.
The Commander offered a real hand brake,
for instance, just starboard of the driver’s
right thigh, where God and Petter Solberg
intended. The ignition switch was in an
obvious location on the dash, not hidden
on the steering column. And the brake
pedal proffered carlike feel, with no dead
travel.
The Jeep’s five-speed automatic was
quicker to kick down and generally less
busy than the Ford’s six-speed. But, hey,
when you have this much power, who
needs gears? Moreover, the Commander
comes with a slap-happy manumatic: Tip
left for downshifts, right for upshifts, and
all those shifts materialized sooner than
the Explorer’s.
Off-road, the unibody Commander
proved an eager climber, mostly by dint of
375 pound-feet of “git ’er done.” But its
chassis evinced an unseemly number of
performance* (20)
steering feel (5)
brake feel (5)
handling (10)
ride (10)
total (50)
20
3
4
7
9
43
19
3
4
6
7
39
gotta-have-it factor (25)
fun to drive (25)
grand total (260)
finishing order
14
13
201
2
17
14
203
1
*These objective scores are calculated from the vehicles’
dimensions, capacities, rebates and discounts,
and/or test results. Best in test.
the third seat, will carry more than two fulgurites when the rearmost seat is raised,
and will tow 3500 pounds—sufficient for
any of the ATVs, motorbikes, buggies, or
two-person campers we encountered at the
dunes. Did we mention that minivans are
cheaper?
Buying an Explorer or Commander on
the premise that you might, one day, need
to carry seven persons and tow a Bayliner
up to Chicken Point is like buying the
Playboy mansion on the premise that you
might, one day, have 17 bosomy, dumb
girlfriends who all want to live with you
at the same time. Yeah, it could happen.
But why pay the mortgage until it does?■
NOVEMBER 2005
ROAD TEST MERCEDES-BENZ C350 SPORT
You’ve paid for Bordeaux,
but your friends think
you got merlot.
BY TONY QUIROGA
100
ccording to the numerologist we
often consult when writing cover
blurbs, an engine that lives for
nine years unchanged is equivalent to 90 human years. So after
a nine-year career without any significant
changes, Mercedes’ old SOHC 3.2-liter
V-6 was feeling about as competitive as a
nonagenarian. It’s not that the Mercedes
3.2-liter was offensive—it was just outdated and feeling a bit underpowered. In
its later years, it had sand kicked in its face
by numerous V-6s that surpassed it in
output and refinement. Mercedes’ strong
and lively 24-valve, 3.5-liter V-6, introduced a year ago on the SLK350 roadster,
has been gradually forcing the graybearded 18-valve, 3.2-liter V-6 into retirement.
After being impressed by the transformation of the SLK into a genuine sports
car with the insertion of the 3.5-liter V-6
into its engine bay, not to mention its willingness to pull the 5000-pound yoke that
is the R-class, we waited patiently for the
new engine to appear in the C-class.
We were hoping the 268-hp engine and
the six-speed manual transmission from
the SLK350 would make the $38,325
C350 Sport into a cheaper alternative to
the $56,225 C55 AMG. Could the new
C350 be an AMG for the Kmart shopper
in all of us? It is, after all, the most powerful manual-transmission C-class ever
(C55s come only with automatics). So
right now you’re probably asking that roll
of toilet paper, “Well, why didn’t you
include one in last month’s comparo?”
Hey, we tried to get one for our “$35,000
Sports Sedans” test in the October issue,
but Mercedes didn’t feel like inserting one
into the cargo hold of a Lufthansa 747-400
bound for Los Angeles.
A month after we got back from the
cookie-baking heat of the California desert,
a Diamond Black (it’s a metallic black with
the slightest hint of blue) C350 six-speed
manual appeared at our doorstep. Mercedes
would likely blanch at our bringing up its
failure to make the comparo, but we’re not
gonna head-butt them on that because
we’re still remembering a 190E 2.3 16V
we returned in 1986 with what we thought
was a slimming and flattering pleat through
the rear door that it didn’t have when we
received it and a rear differential whose
future was no longer operative.
It is unfortunate that the C350 didn’t
get to duke it out with the competition.
Although it probably wouldn’t have
emerged victorious—an as-tested price of
$45,055 would have certainly hurt its
chances—it is dynamically good enough
to challenge the top finishers. The C350
offers a blend of refinement and sport that
was absent in the sedans that didn’t get to
stand on the podium.
Thanks to the new engine and gearbox,
the C350 has acceleration that would have
A
defeated all the comparo competition
except for the new Lexus IS350. Although
the C350 shares its six-speed with the
SLK, a taller—numerically lower—finaldrive ratio means that it takes one shift to
reach 60 mph instead of the two shifts
required by the SLK. This is likely why
the C350’s 5.5-second run to 60 mph is
only 0.1 second slower than the SLK350,
which is 255 pounds lighter.
Around town, the torque-laden engine
never feels as if it’s on its heels. All 258
pound-feet of torque are available by 2400
rpm, and they’re all still there when you
reach 5000 rpm. The river of torque gives
one the ability to squirt around the holes
left by the doddering dullards who seem
to live for stopping at traffic lights.
There are aspects of the C350 that
show Mercedes isn’t as comfortable
making a manual-transmission sports
sedan as, say, BMW. Shift throws, while
light, are vague and rubbery, the accelerator and brake pedals could be hung closer
together, the accelerator pedal has a kickdown switch from the automatic car, and
the parking brake is foot operated. These
gripes still aren’t enough to make us take
the optional seven-speed automatic over
the six-speed manual, but they do give the
impression that the offering of the manual
is an afterthought.
Okay, so it’s not a perfect manual, but
Mercedes has no such problem tuning a
proper sports-sedan chassis. Compared
with the automatic-only C350 Luxury, the
Sport sits lower and has five-spoke, 17inch wheels shod with wider summer tires
instead of 16-inch wheels with narrower
all-season tires. The ride is firm but never
harsh. Even the worst bumps are dealt with
quickly and quietly. The structure is similarly unflappable, very Mercedes-like.
With the stability control “off” (it doesn’t
go fully off when you hit the button),
understeer sets in a bit too early, and that
is largely why the C350 could only muster
0.83 g on the skidpad. The understeer does
make the Benz’s handling safe and the
available grip easy to exploit.
The chassis is much like the one on the
now defunct C230 Kompressor sedan and
its replacement, the 201-hp, 2.5-liter
V-6–powered C230 Sport. Aesthetically,
the C350 Sport looks exactly like those
lesser 30-grand C-classes. That’s a
problem. If you just wrote a check for 45
grand, you don’t want to look like you
spent $15,000 less. Couldn’t Mercedes
have dressed up the C350 Sport a little?
It’s a remarkably good C-class that
deserves its own identity. At a minimum
Mercedes might have offered some different wheels.
At least there are some large brakes
behind those familiar wheels. Sport
models get 13.6-inch cross-drilled rotors
with four-piston calipers in front, again
shared with the less expensive C230 Sport.
101
THE VERDICT
Highs: Smooth and powerful V-6,
available manual transmission,
chassis serves up a perfect ride,
stellar interior build quality, overwhelming feeling of solidity.
Lows: Looks like the least-expensive
C-class, plasticky and unwelcoming
interior, a bit too much understeer,
vague shifter.
The Verdict: A pleasing manual-
COUNTERPOINT
transmission Benz that doesn’t look
as special as it should.
DAVE VANDERWERP
After all our criticism regarding Mercedes products that can’t be had with a manual transmission, there’s no complaint about a C-class with a
pretty decent six-speed combined with the 3.5liter V-6 that has already spruced up much of
the Benz lineup. Acceleration times have quickened to match those of the class leaders,
although skidpad and braking remain average.
But here’s what’s holding it back: The price is
among the highest in class, the seats don’t
adjust to fit as well as those in the 3-series, the
steering is numb, and understeer prevails. Less
critical are oversights such as an accelerator
detent and a foot-operated parking brake, both
out of place in a manual sports sedan.
The brakes are large, but the 175-foot stop
from 70 mph would have been strictly
average among its peers. Fortunately, the
C-class never was saddled with the touchy
electrohydraulic brakes of the E- and SLclasses.
Slip into the C350 Sport, and you
might think you’re in last year’s C230
Kompressor. Perhaps it was the light gray
interior of our test car, which Mercedes
describes as Ash, but the ambience isn’t
exactly up to the $45,000 level. Ever notice
the way a Kmart smells when you first
walk in? That’s how the C350 smells—a
nose of overwhelming plastic with hints of
rotating pretzels, aging popcorn, and floor
wax. The C-class received a revised interior back in 2003; the most significant
change is that the gauges are now full circles instead of half-circles, but the C-class
remains at the dull end of the spectrum.
Mercedes describes the Sport model as
having sport seats; apparently, that means
nothing more than thin padding. We’d
really rather have the C55’s thickly bolstered and supportive chairs. Sport models
get what Mercedes calls textured alu102
minum trim. It’s definitely textured, definitely not aluminum. Luxury C350s come
with wood instead; we’re not crazy about
wood, but we’d rather have that. The only
part of the interior that feels as if it belongs
in a sports sedan is the three-spoke, multifunction steering wheel borrowed from
the SLK350.
The design may be uninspired, but the
build quality is peerless. The dash plastic
is tightly grained, and each piece fits perfectly and feels as if it will forever. The
way the A-pillar trim fits into the headliner
and dashboard borders on the artistic.
Maybe that assessment is a bit over the top,
but it’s an impressive fit. Also, the view
over the short dashboard is panoramic.
At $38,325 the C350 Sport is indeed a
compelling alternative to the C55 AMG.
Start piling on the options, which is easy
to do with Mercedes seeming to charge for
everything—metallic paint is $680—and
making the jump to the more special C55
sounds better and better. Our tester wore a
$2210 navigation system, a $970 stereo
upgrade with a glove-box-mounted CD
changer, and the $1790 Sunroof package
PATTI MAKI
Wonderful six-speed manual. I didn’t find the
shifter vague or rubbery, and the clutch didn’t
demand my full attention for a smooth launch.
Who would want to pay $1390 for the optional
seven-speed automatic? What’s odd, though, is
that the C350 Luxury with the seven-speed standard is only $600 more than the C350 Sport. I
agree the C350’s styling pretty much sucks,
especially when you’ve optioned up to 45K.
Several times I looked out at this Benz and
couldn’t remember what the heck car I’d driven
home. But this smooth six-speed and the 268hp aluminum V-6 make the C350 Sport, for me,
competitive with the 3-series. Stay on your
game, BMW.
LARRY WEBSTER
Finally, here’s a small Benz sedan that can be in
the same room with the Munich hot shot, the
BMW 3-series. The Benz’s chassis has a similarly
compliant-yet-precise feel to it, the manual
tranny is pretty good, and the new engine is a
tiger, making the C350 satisfyingly quick. I also
found myself appreciating this car for its terrifically low cowl and drop-away hood that provides a fantastic view of the road. Dynamically,
there’s only one thing to gripe about and that’s
a spongy brake pedal with too much travel.
Unfortunately, this thing is expensive. Yeah, I
know, so is the 3-series, but as good as the
C350 is, the 3-series still feels the way all cars
should.
NOVEMBER 2005
MERCEDES-BENZ
C350 SPORT
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4door sedan
Price and option breakdown: base Mercedes-Benz C350
Sport (includes $775 freight), $38,325; navigation system, $2210;
Sunroof package (includes power sunroof, rain-sensing wipers,
power rear-window shade), $1790; Entertainment package (consists of glove-box-mounted 6-CD changer, Harman/Kardon
stereo), $970; Lighting package (consists of bixenon headlamps
and heated headlamp washers), $790; Diamond Black Metallic
paint, $680; split-folding rear seats, $290
Major standard accessories: power windows, seats, and locks;
remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting and telescoping steering
wheel; rear defroster
Sound system: Harman/Kardon AM-FM radio/CD player and
changer, 12 speakers
that includes a garage-door opener, rainsensing wipers, and auto-dimming
rearview mirrors.
What bothers us about the C350 Sport
is that it looks too much like the lesser Cclasses. This is a special car built to please
enthusiasts willing to pay a premium for a
Benz. Call it a sleeper if you must, but
when you’re charged this much for a Cclass, should it look like the least expensive of its brethren? Perhaps if it looked
more like AMG’s C55 inside and out we
might feel better about the price. It’s a
problem of expectations. We were
awaiting a poor man’s C55, and we got
what appears to be a poor man’s Benz. ■
ENGINE
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6, aluminum block and heads
Valve gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . chain-driven double overhead cams,
4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters,
variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing
Torque (SAE net). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm
Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6400 rpm
CURRENT BASE PRICE* dollars x 1000
Cadillac CTS (3.6-liter, 255 hp, 6-sp man)
Lexus IS350 (3.5-liter, 306 hp, 6-sp auto)
ESTIMATED
Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport (3.5-liter, 268 hp, 6-sp man)
BMW 330i (3.0-liter, 255 hp, 6-sp man)
0
8
16
24
32
40
*Base price includes freight, any performance options, and applicable gas-guzzler tax.
ACCELERATION seconds 0–60 mph 1/4-mile
Lexus IS350
Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport
BMW 330i
Cadillac CTS
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION
Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9
40 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5
70 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6
120 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2
130 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
50–70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9
Standing 1/4 -mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (governor limited). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 mph
BRAKING
HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83 g
Understeer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . minimal moderate excessive
FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 mpg
C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 mpg
Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 dBA
70-mph cruising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 dBA
0
8
12
16
20
BRAKING 70–0 mph, feet
BMW 330i
Cadillac CTS
130
140
150
160
170
180
ROADHOLDING 300-foot skidpad, g
Lexus IS350
Cadillac CTS
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
BMW 330i
Lexus IS350
Cadillac CTS
10
15
STEERING
Type . . . . . rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist
Steering ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5:1
BRAKES
anti-lock control
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 x 1.2-in cross-drilled and vented disc
Rear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 x 0.4-in disc
EPA CITY FUEL ECONOMY mpg
5
INTERIOR
SAE volume, front seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 cu ft
rear seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 cu ft
luggage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 cu ft
Front-seat adjustments. . . . . . . . . . fore-and-aft, seatback angle,
front height, rear height;
driver only: lumbar support
Restraint systems, front . . . . . . manual 3-point belts; driver and
passenger front, side, and curtain airbags
rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . manual 3-point belts, curtain airbags
SUSPENSION
Front. . . . ind, strut located by 1 diagonal link and 1 lateral link,
coil springs, anti-roll bar
Rear. . . . . ind; 1 trailing link, 1 diagonal link, 2 lateral links, and
1 toe-control link per side; coil springs; anti-roll bar
BMW 330i
0.50
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.9 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3515 lb
Curb weight per horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 lb
CHASSIS/BODY
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unit construction
Body material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . welded steel stampings
Lexus IS350
0
104
4
DRIVETRAIN
Gear
Ratio
Mph/1000 rpm
Max test speed
I
4.46
5.7
37 mph (6400 rpm)
II
2.61
9.8
63 mph (6400 rpm)
III
1.72
14.9
95 mph (6400 rpm)
IV
1.25
20.5
131 mph (6400 rpm)
V
1.00
25.6
132 mph (5150 rpm)
VI
0.84
30.5
132 mph (4350 rpm)
20
25
WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: 7.5 x 17 in, R: 8.5 x 17 in
Wheel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cast aluminum
Tires . . . . . . . . Continental SportContact 2; F: 225/45R-17 91W,
R: 245/40R-17 91W
Spare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . high-pressure compact
NOVEMBER 2005
SUPERFOUR
CHALLENGE
Among the high-horsepower
brigade was at least
one guy who brought
something practical—
a car he could sleep in.
PHOTOGRAPHY BY RICH CHENET AND JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
■ Ross Converse’s call seeking a spot
in our annual hyper-horsepower
shootout, the Car and Driver
“Supercar Challenge,” was a real
surprise. We hadn’t heard from him
since 1997, when he visited us from
faraway Maine, where he had stuffed
a couple of Ford V-8s into two Volvo
wagons. Apparently, it took some
time for word of our annual supercar
event, now entering its fourth year,
to penetrate the deep woods of
Down East.
O
ur shootout is a two-day cornucopia of excessive horsepower and speed that’s as close as we can get to the
wild and crazy era of the 1970s—when Yates unleashed
a flock of nutballs in a cross-country race called the Cannonball—without having to post a lot of bail bonds.
We invite about 15 cars that have glorious amounts of
power—last year three entries claimed 800 horsepower—and
wildly fluctuating prices, from a minimalist $30,000 to more than
110
$200,000. On the first day, we drive the cars on public roads to
measure drivability on a five-star scale, with five being best. On
the second day, each car gets five runs through our special
autocross course that includes a standing-start quarter-mile run,
a 0.8-mile road-course section, and a blast to 150 mph on a
racetrack, followed by a hard-braking stop from 150 mph. The
car with the lowest elapsed time over the entire course wins.
Although the event was originally envisioned as an unlim-
ited affair open to current-model production cars with or without
souped-up engines and suspensions, in 2003 we invited only
four-cylinder cars and changed the event’s name to the “Superfour Challenge.” We wanted to see what the “fast and furious”
crowd had to offer. Last year our challenge went back to the big
dogs, but for 2005, we’ve reverted to the four-bangers again.
That presented a problem for Converse, as he’d hoped to
enter one of his V-8 Volvos, an example of which was once pur-
chased by Paul Newman. We had no problem attracting entries,
and by April we’d signed up 20 cars for this year’s late-June
event, held at Michigan International Speedway and the environs of Jackson, Michigan, about 80 miles west of Detroit.
The rules for the shootout are fairly simple. Cars must run
on 93-octane fuel without nitrous or alcohol injection. We mandated tires that have a minimum tread-wear rating of 140, and
the rubber had to be purchased from the Tire Rack, ensuring
111
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
no cheater pieces. As in the past, entrants were free to provide
their own drivers, or they could rely on C/D technical director
Larry Webster as wheelman. A five-second penalty was assessed
if a driver hit a cone. If a car was louder than 103 dBA, a 10second penalty was assessed.
Thanks to our GPS-based Racelogic VBOX test gear, we were
able to pull individual measures of performance from each run,
including a 0-to-60-mph acceleration time, a quarter-mile time
and speed, a road-course time, and high-speed acceleration
and braking numbers. We don’t have the space here to list the
results from all the runs, but you can find them at
www.CARandDRIVER.com. One caveat: Since we relaxed the
strict procedures we follow religiously for road tests that appear
in the magazine—for example, runs must be made in two directions—we did not apply our weather-correction procedure to
the acceleration results. It was hot and humid on the track that
day in June, and we estimate that the recorded times are probably high by a few 10ths of a second.
Explanation of Test Results
THE PLAYERS
price as tested*
horsepower†
2002 AEM Honda Civic Si. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $59,724 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
2004 Buschur Racing Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS . . . . . . . . . . $52,084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
1997 Converse Engineering Toyota Tacoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26,308†† . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
2005 Easy Street Motorsports/Advantage Racing Technologies
Subaru Impreza WRX STi Ali Afshar Signature Series . . . . . . $91,915. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
2004 Flyin’ Miata FM Speed Mazdaspeed MX-5 Miata . . . . . . . . . . $49,752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
2005 Forcedfed Lotus Elise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $95,183. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
2002 Hasport Performance/Jackson Racing Honda Civic Si . . . . . . $39,184. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
2005 HKS USA Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86,788 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
2005 Hondata/Prototype Racing Lotus Elise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72,654 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
2004 Howell Automotive Dodge SRT4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $43,153. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
2003 Mini-Madness Mini Cooper S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50,756 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
2001 Powerworks Ford Focus ZX3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25,051. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
2004 Skunk2 Racing Honda Civic Si RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $53,199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
2004 STaSIS Engineering Audi A4 1.8T Quattro Ultrasport. . . . . . . $52,670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
*Calculated using 2005 new-car prices. †Manufacturer’s claim. ††Calculated using Kelly Blue Book used-car appraisal.
112
We define a “run” as a completed cycle of our
test course. So a run begins when a car leaves
the starting line and ends when it comes to a
stop. Each car is allowed five runs, and from
each run we determine several other performance measures—quarter-mile acceleration,
braking distance, road-course time, etc. We
base the car’s performance on its best run,
and that means the lowest overall time wins.
That best run and key data points are depicted
graphically on pages 124 and 133. Complicating things, we have found instances in
which a car scored a quicker quarter-mile
time, or a quicker road-course time, in a run
that was, nonetheless, slower than its best
time. So for each car, we’ve also listed the best
quarter-mile acceleration time and speed,
road-course time, and braking distance that
the car performed in its five runs.
Check out the data for all the runs as well
as detailed specifications at www.CARand
DRIVER.com.
NOVEMBER 2005
This year, we had two classes and lowered the 150-mph top
speed. For the front-drive class, the maximum velocity was 130
mph; the rear- or four-wheel-drive class had to reach 140. We
also borrowed an exhaust-gas analyzer from Horiba to test for
the presence of a catalytic converter. Our measurements were
not intended to determine legality, since laws differ from state to
state, but we figured if a car had even a chance of being legal, it
had to have a cat.
As the event date approached, a few entries dropped out.
Then Converse called back with a proposed entry: How about
a modified Toyota Tacoma pickup truck with a turbocharged
engine and independent rear suspension? That sounded like a
sitting duck in a field that included Mitsubishi Evos, Lotus Elises,
a triplet of Honda Civics, and a Subaru WRX STi, so we were
hesitant. Then he told us he planned to drive it to the event
with a camper on the pickup bed. How could you turn down
that kind of enthusiasm? We couldn’t. Could a turbo Tacoma
camper compete? Read on to find out.
—Larry Webster
chicane
start
road course
Michigan
International
Speedway
The cars start from a standstill, then accelerate full throttle down the length of pit lane,
past the 1320-foot, quarter-mile mark. After 2100 feet, the course takes a hard left onto a
0.8-mile road course. Exiting the road course, the drivers turn left into Turn Three of the
oval track. In the middle of that turn, the cars are slowed by a chicane, then they accelerate through Turn Four and onto the front straight. When the cars reach the target
speed (130 mph for the front-drive cars and 140 for the rear- or four-wheel-drive cars),
the driver hits the brakes until the car comes to a standstill.
NOVEMBER 2005
Here, kitty-kitty-kitty. With a $5600 Horiba
exhaust-gas analyzer (www.horiba.com), we
determined that six cars—the Flyin’ Miata
Mazdaspeed MX-5, the Forcedfed Elise, the
Howell SRT4, the HKS Evo, the Powerworks
Focus, and the STaSIS A4—had catalytic
converters that were functioning. We tell you
this because modern cars stand no chance of
passing emissions tests without a cat.
113
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
finish
FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE
FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE
6th Place
2001 Powerworks Ford Focus ZX3
Street drivability: ★★★★★
1/4-mile: 15.2 sec @ 92 mph
Road course: 52.9 sec
120-to-0-mph braking: 542 feet
Total course time: DNF
this had been a street-driving contest, the PowFocus would have been a contender if
Inotferworks
the winner. But this was a performance gun-
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
fight, and the car turned out to be a pea shooter
compared with the other small-caliber contestants.
Everyone agreed they could easily live with this car
day in and day out, but it lacked the raw power of
the competitors.
What power there was came from a stock Focus
2.0-liter engine with the $4750 Powerworks supercharger package that blows 12 pounds of boost.
Powerworks claims the juiced-up engine is good
for 223 horsepower and 188 pound-feet of torque,
a vast 72-percent improvement over the stock mill.
A Quaife limited-slip differential and a Centerforce
clutch helped get the power to the ground.
Keeping the car well planted were an SVT Focus
suspension and wider Ford Racing wheels with big
225/45ZR-17 BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD tires. The
chassis also benefited from front and rear SVT Focus
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3door coupe
Price as tested: $25,051 (base price: $24,646)
Engine type: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve
inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $7190 suspension: $888
brakes: $1040 wheels/tires: $1378 body/interior: $405
Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 cu in, 1988cc
Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Front brakes . . . . . . . Ford SVT Focus 12.0 x 1.0-in vented discs;
Ford SVT Focus 1-piston calipers
Rear brakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ford SVT Focus 11.0 x 0.4-in discs;
Ford SVT Focus 1-piston calipers
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ford SVT Focus
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.0 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2799 lb
*Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.
calipers, rotors, and pads.
On the street, the engine pulled strongly, the
clutch was smooth and effortless, and the car rode
comfortably and had sharp handling reflexes. We
didn’t like the loud whining of the supercharger,
but we’re aware that some youthful buyers might.
At the track, the Powerworks Focus couldn’t
attain the 130-mph top-speed requirement on any
of its runs, so it failed to score an overall official
time and thus finished last in class. Its best 0-to-60mph and quarter-mile times of 6.4 and 15.2 seconds were a bunch quicker than a standard Focus
and 1.4 and 0.9 seconds quicker than the last threedoor SVT Focus we tested. Used, inexpensive Foci
are all over the place. Add the Powerworks blower,
and you could have a rice beater for not a lot of
scratch.
—André Idzikowski
5th Place
2002 Hasport Performance/
Jackson Racing Honda Civic Si
Street drivability: ★★★
1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 101 mph
Total course time: 121.5 sec
aking its second appearance in our competition, Hasport’s canary-yellow Honda Civic buzz
M
bomb finished fifth two years ago and limped into
4th Place
1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 104 mph
to see a naturally aspirated combatant
field heavy with turbos and superchargers,
Ibuttinwaswethisgood
have to wonder if it’s worth $15,850 to avoid
having a blower feeding the intake system. That’s
what you’d pay, including $4900 labor, to duplicate
this powertrain package. The Skunk2 crew yanked
the stock Civic Si engine and substituted an Acura
TSX 2.4-liter block ($2000, including the six-speed
manual) and a CNC-ported Acura RSX head
($2400). Other upgrades included a Hondata K-Pro
ECU flash ($995), Skunk2 Stage 1 cams ($850),
Cunningham forged con rods ($800), Wiseco
forged aluminum pistons ($500), RC Engineering
fuel injectors ($450), Megapower exhaust system
($490), and Skunk2 exhaust header ($520), forged
valves ($380), and titanium valve retainers ($150).
There was more, but the welcome news here
is that a customer can treat this long list as a menu.
Moreover, the Skunk2 car was quicker to 60 than
either of the boosted Civics, with a best of 5.4 sec-
Engine type: supercharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum
block and head, port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $9360 suspension: $1886
Front brakes. . . . . Fastbrakes 12.2 x 0.8-in vented, cross-drilled,
and grooved discs; Fastbrakes 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . Acura RSX Type-S 10.2 x 0.4-in discs;
Acura RSX Type-S 1-piston calipers
Brake pads . . . . F: Cobalt Friction spec(B), R: Acura RSX Type-S
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2800 lb
NOVEMBER 2005
117
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
second-to-last place this year on a broken front
shock absorber. While it ran, the Civic Si was fearsome on many levels.
Hasport is in business to facilitate Honda engine
swaps, and this company-owned Civic Si has had
a few. It arrived at our competition having recently
swallowed a Honda K24a2 2.4-liter i-VTEC motor
from an Acura TSX (made available when a rail shipment of new TSXs overturned en route to dealers).
The i-VTEC system adds variable intake-cam timing
to Honda’s stepped variable timing-and-lift system.
Two years ago, Hasport attained slightly more
horsepower but with much greater effort by dropping an Acura RSX Type-S i-VTEC cylinder head on
a K24 block.
This time, a Jackson Racing supercharger running twin Eaton rotors packs 6.0 pounds of nonintercooled boost into the K24a2, good for 300
horsepower, Hasport claims. A Jackson Racing
header feeds into a MagnaFlow cat-back exhaust,
and an RSX Type-S six-speed puts the twist to the
front 17-inch 5Zigen wheels and BFGoodrich gForce T/A KDs.
Stab the gas pedal and hold fast. The Civic
squirts forward like a startled silverfish, and its nose
sways back and forth like a drunk Labrador’s. The
2004 Skunk2 Racing
Honda Civic Si RR
FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE
blown K24a2 twisted the steering so vigorously that
the car’s path became an alarming sine wave. Caution was mandated in turns; midcorner stomps
caused the Civic to widen its line as if blown by a
hurricane gust. Unfortunately, that evil behavior was
likely caused by the broken shock, which was discovered after two white-knuckle runs on the track.
Otherwise, the hyper Hasport was an easy drive
with smooth clutch takeup and a rapping snarl that
softened to a hum in sixth gear at 70 mph. Before
Hasport parked the Civic, its best quarter-mile time
of 14.3 seconds beat its 2002 performance by 0.2
second. Even with the busted shock, its road-course
time was only about one second off that of the
leaders. On that day, the heart was willing but the
legs were shaky.
—Aaron Robinson
FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
onds, trailing only the Howell SRT4. The Skunk2
guys claim 315 horsepower, delivered with less
torque steer than the other Civics, and we’re here
to tell you their Civic was terrifically entertaining to
drive. Our only street-drive complaints were lofty
noise levels at full throttle and the vision-limiting
wraparound head bolsters of the Sparco driver’s
seat. Save the $700.
If the driver hadn’t made a critical mistake
during the fourth run, the Skunk2 car would have
placed higher. During that run, Webster tried to
shift from fourth to fifth but moved the shifter too
118
far to the right and went into the plane where
reverse gear lies. In the ensuing fumbling, he got
third instead of fifth and consequently overrevved
the engine when he let out the clutch. A costly mistake in more ways than one. In Webster’s defense,
the six-speed was awfully vague, and the Skunk2
guys hadn’t installed the reverse-gear lockout solenoid that both the AEM and Hasport cars had. The
Skunk2 car did, however, post the second-best
road-course time in its class, a testament to its
smooth power delivery and good handling.
—Tony Swan
Engine type: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head,
port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $15,850 suspension: $4660
Power (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 bhp @ 7800 rpm
Front brakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brembo 12.9 x 1.1-in vented,
cross-drilled discs; Brembo 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . Acura RSX Type-S 10.2 x 0.4-in discs;
Acura RSX Type-S 1-piston calipers
Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Brembo High Performance,
R: Acura RSX Type-S
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2657 lb
FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE
2003 Mini-Madness Mini Cooper S
Street drivability: ★★★★
1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 101 mph
f the front-drivers, only the Mini-Madness
Cooper S ran all five heats without a single DNF.
O
Chalk it up to American ingenuity, or British fortitude, or German practicality. The M-M Cooper S
represents all three.
Packing the blown SOHC 1.6-liter motor under
that half-gallon hood required compromises in the
stock air-to-air intercooler design. Mini-Madness
attacks the BTU surplus by subbing in a higher-efficiency air-to-liquid intercooler. A custom-fabricated
intake draws more air from the cowl vents rather
than from the heated engine compartment. Both
the intake and exhaust valves were upsized by one
Engine type: supercharged and intercooled SOHC 16-valve
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 cu in, 1598cc
Front brakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . StopTech 12.9 x 1.1-in vented,
grooved discs; StopTech 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes. . . . stock 10.2 x 0.4-in discs; stock 1-piston calipers
Brake pads . . . . . . . F: Pagid Orange, R: Ferodo Racing DS2500
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.1 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2634 lb
NOVEMBER 2005
millimeter, and a Schrick 270-degree cam bumps
up the lift and duration for better mid- and highrev breathing. A smaller supercharger pulley accelerates the blower speed by 15 percent and pushes
boost from the stock 10.5 psi to about 14 psi. All of
that alters the horsepower readings from 168 to a
claimed 265. The power heads for the pavement
through a Mini-Madness low-mass flywheel, Stage
3 six-puck clutch, and Quaife limited-slip differential.
In the basement, M-M installed a Tein Competition coil-over suspension with 16 settings
ranging in firmness from corner crusher to “Coupe
de Ville.” It’s a luxury at $1999, but it makes this
massaged Mini’s ride livable on street pavement.
The StopTech big-brake kit stands the 2634-pound
Mini on its nose. A solid structure and cheetah
reflexes seduce one to reckless corner speeds. The
extra power hurls the Mini out of turns with a hearty
supercharger whine but only a faint torque tug on
the steering. Grip is colossal, especially in the Sparco
Milano bucket seats.
The Mini’s best quarter-mile was 14.5 seconds,
a full second and change more than M-M’s 2003
entrant, and the road-course time ranked tops
among front-drivers at 51.2 seconds. It was the run
from 100 to 130 mph where the brick-like Mini bled
time. When they return in two years, the M-M boys
say they’ll have the new Mini with its new twin-cam
engine. To that we say, “Yo, that’s bloody ausgezeichnet!”
—Aaron Robinson
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
3rd Place
2nd Place
2002 AEM Honda Civic Si
Street drivability: ★★
1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 105 mph
he AEM Civic Si seemed like an effective recipe
for speed, with its claimed 396 horsepower
T(second
only to the Howell Automotive SRT4) and
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
its 2525-pound weight making it the lightest in
class. Not surprisingly, its $59,724 price was also
the most expensive.
AEM started by installing a 2.0-liter RSX TypeS engine sleeved by Cosworth, then added a Gar-
120
rett turbo putting out 14 pounds of boost, a sixspeed tranny from the RSX, and a Quaife limitedslip differential. But by the time the company finished upgrading the half-shafts, clutch, fuel-delivery
system, and exhaust, the Civic Si’s powertrain added
a whopping $17,267 to the pay line.
Next came a Progress coil-over suspension and
anti-roll bars, super-sized brakes, and up-sized
wheels and tires. To lose weight, the interior was
completely gutted—out went the rear seat, the A/C,
and almost all sound-deadening material.
The engine’s surprisingly linear power delivery
stood out in this boost-crazy field. However, the
lack of sound deadening, combined with extreme
levels of torque steer, a very narrow Sparco Corsa
seat with no adjustments, and an ultra-stiff suspension that clomped over every road imperfection, resulted in a worst-in-class two-star streetdrivability rating.
At the track, the AEM Civic ran a respectable
13.9-second quarter-mile (losing only to the Howell
SRT4) but beat only two competitors with a 52.5second road-course time. It made up ground with
a second-best 100-to-130-mph time and a 130-tostandstill braking number that was 190 feet shorter
than the SRT4’s, but AEM’s best overall run (113.0
seconds) ended up just 0.7 second shy of the $9000cheaper class-champ SRT4. —Dave VanderWerp
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve
inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
brakes: $4674 wheels/tires: $2410 body/interior: $12,749
Front brakes . . . . . . . Brembo 12.9 x 1.1-in vented, cross-drilled
discs; Brembo 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . Power Slot 12.3 x 0.4-in grooved discs;
stock 1-piston calipers
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AEM
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2525 lb
NOVEMBER 2005
1st Place
2004 Howell Automotive
Dodge SRT4
1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 112 mph
e had conflicting expectations for the Howell
Automotive SRT4–big power, but big torque
W
steer, too—but the front-drive champ didn’t quite
measure up on one of those items. The shortfall
wasn’t in the power department. Howell claims 452
ponies and 476 pound-feet of torque from the turbocharged and intercooled 2.4-liter twin-cam four,
which sounds a little optimistic. But there was certainly enough to make this the quickest ride in its
class—4.9 seconds to 60, 13.4 seconds at 112 mph
in the quarter. The surprise was the dynamic element. With all that locomotive torque, we expected
a wrestling match at the steering wheel every time
we tramped on the gas. But that wasn’t the case.
There was a little tugging in the first three gears,
but nothing to rival the antics of the two boosted
Civics, and no worse than a stock SRT4. Howell
attributes this relatively civilized street behavior to
a Quaife limited-slip differential ($1200). The little
Dodge could certainly put the power on the pavement, and aside from a slightly stiff ride, plus an
exhaust note sure to offend your girlfriend’s father,
the SRT4 was surprisingly acceptable by everyday
ride standards.
Most of the cost in this setup—$15,404—is under
the hood, and Howell admits the primary clientele
tends toward drag racing. But there was enough
attention to the suspension—Vogtland coil-overs
($1000), a Progress rear anti-roll bar ($175), Prothane bushings ($130)—to get the Dodge through
the road-course section with a decent time. The
combination of respectable handling and serious
go power was enough to overcome indifferent
braking performance and capture the class trophy.
One logbook scribbler summed it up as “rice with
an American flavor.”
—Tony Swan
NOVEMBER 2005
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4door sedan
Front brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilwood 12.2 x 0.9-in vented discs;
Wilwood 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stock 10.6 x 0.5-in discs;
Brake pads . . . . . F: Wilwood PolyMatrix Q compound, R: stock
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.0 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2934 lb
121
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
FRONT-WHEEL-DRIVE RESULTS
124
NOVEMBER 2005
REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE
REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL
DRIVE
8th Place
1997 Converse Engineering
Toyota Tacoma
1/4-mile: 14.4 sec @ 98 mph
140-to-0-mph braking: DNF
Converse says it happened this way: Some
into his third or fourth career—dropRpingoss20Fordyears
V-8s into older Volvos and selling con-
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
version kits out of his garage in Naples, Maine—a
friend came into some cash by way of inheritance.
This friend, perhaps hammered at the time, offered
to underwrite the construction of a vehicle for this
year’s C/D competition.
A Volvo was out. They’re all five-bangers now
and way too expensive. So Converse spent the first
$4000 acquiring a 120,000-mile 1997 Tacoma
pickup and $390 for a piggyback camper. Yes, weird.
Then things got weirder. Converse cut the rear
frame above the axle and reshaped it to accept the
independent rear suspension from a 1989 Toyota
Supra. The installation went smoothly; the tangle
of links and shafts and Koni coil-over shocks that
replaced the old leaf-spring log looked like a factory option. Converse reassembled the 2.7-liter four
using LC Engineering pistons, rods, head, and cams.
He also bolted on LC’s Garrett turbocharging kit,
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2door truck
Engine type: turbocharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block
and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Front brakes . . stock 9.9-in vented discs; stock 1-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . 1989 Toyota Supra 11.5 x 0.7-in vented discs;
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EBC 6000 Series Greenstuff
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2823 lb
126
the air taking an express route from the compressor
to the intake. Even without an intercooler, Converse
claims 250 horsepower. The motor bill ran $15,300.
By now, the friend had dried out and money (and
time) was running short. Converse sold off his
snowplow to get the truck pieced together just in
time for a 900-mile nonstop blast to Michigan. He
and daughter Ellen, 21, arrived within minutes of
our entry cutoff.
The Tacoma steered straight, absorbed bumps,
and tracked through corners with newfound grip
and body control. It was declared one of the bestriding vehicles. When poked, the engine whistled
and whooshed with a heavy tug of torque. A better
combination of street racer/sod hauler couldn’t be
imagined.
Converse figures the high level of grip incurred
on the road course sloshed the oil around and
starved one of the cylinders. On its maiden run, the
Tacoma DNF’d after making just 114 mph, and the
engine was clanking like a rock tumbler. Lacking the
budget for a 900-mile tow, Converse loaded up
camper and daughter and took his chances on the
highway, topping up the oil liberally along the way.
Astoundingly, they made it home.
—Aaron Robinson
7th Place
2004 STaSIS Engineering
Audi A4 1.8T Quattro Ultrasport
1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 102 mph
efined, that’s what describes the STaSIS Engineering A4. It’s the adult in this wild-child gang
Rof competitors.
Quiet and understated is the recipe
STaSIS used for its entry: no wings, bulges, or scoops.
The Audi really shined on the street part of our
challenge. Its Öhlins coil-over shocks and adjustable
rear anti-roll bar improved the roll stiffness of the
car and minimized any body gyrations under hard
cornering. Although the overall ride quality was stiff,
it was also smooth and comfortable. So, the STaSIS
earned a five-star rating on the street-drivability portion of the challenge.
Like most turbocharged cars, the STaSIS A4 felt
weak at the low end of the rev spectrum, but once
the engine got above 3500 rpm, it produced a
strong, grin-inducing surge of power. An APR Stage
sedan
brakes: $4070 wheels/tires: $2923 body/interior: stock
Front brakes . . . . . . . Alcon 14.0 x 1.3-in vented, grooved discs;
Alcon 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . Track Sport 12.0 x 0.5-in grooved discs;
Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SBS Pro Track
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.3 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3581 lb
Weight distribution, F/R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.7/42.3%
6th Place
2004 Flyin’ Miata FM Speed
Mazdaspeed MX-5 Miata
1/4-mile: 13.1 sec @ 112 mph
fter driving some of the more outlandish cars
gathered here, the Flyin’ Miata MX-5 felt, well,
Anormal.
As proof of just how livable a modified car
can be, owner Bill Cardell drove about 1500 miles
from Colorado to this bash. But a first drive gave
the impression that this turbocharged roadster was
a little too tame. Hey, where’s the boost? A glance
underhood revealed a loose intercooler hose
blowing the forced air away from the engine. Once
the hose was secured (and it did not come loose
127
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
3+ turbo kit that includes a larger Garrett turbo, an
APR front-mount intercooler kit, and an APR highflow exhaust system bumped the engine’s output
to a claimed 340 horses and 332 pound-feet of
torque. That’s exactly double what a stock A4 1.8T
puts out. Bigger Alcon brakes and sticky Yokohama
Advan Neova tires made stopping quickly as easy
as going fast.
The boost in power didn’t help the STaSIS at
the track. It couldn’t go 140 mph, so its official times
were calculated from 130 mph, and that put it in
seventh place in its class. That’s not surprising considering it was more than 450 pounds heavier and
141 horses short of the winning HKS Evolution.
So although the STaSIS didn’t do well at the
track, we’d say it’s a great interpretation of a sports
sedan that will satisfy a wannabe racer and still cart
the family to the grocery store. —André Idzikowski
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
again), the Miata felt quite powerful, especially
above 4000 rpm.
It’s no surprise that creating a Miata capable of
running a 13.1-second quarter-mile at 112 mph
requires extensive modifications. Flyin’ Miata starts
with the Mazdaspeed 1.8-liter engine, enlarges it to
2.0 liters with new internals, and adds a larger-thanstock turbo and intercooler that churn out a claimed
13.5 psi of boost. For our competition, the stock
Mazdaspeed 4.1:1 rear end was combined with the
five-speed manual and its slightly taller top gear so
the Miata could get to 140 mph, which the 2451pound car had no trouble achieving.
Tweaks to the chassis include wider wheels and
tires, coil-over shocks, and a stiffer front anti-roll
bar. At first, the turn-in feels too fast—the Miata
would dive for the inside of a corner—but it only
took a couple of turns to gain confidence and revel
in the grippy tires. Better yet, the Flyin’ Miata has a
more gentle ride than did the last stock Mazdaspeed
Miata we drove. We weren’t surprised when Cardell
drove the Flyin’ Miata car back to Colorado after
the competition. When a tuner car is faster and
more fun than the original, wouldn’t you?
—Tony Quiroga
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2door roadster
Front brakes . . . . . Wilwood 11.8 x 1.0-in vented, grooved discs;
Wilwood 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilwood 11.8 x 0.4-in grooved discs;
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Performance Friction PFC97,
R: Carbotech Panther XP8
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2451 lb
128
5th Place
2005 Easy Street Motorsports/
Advantage Racing Technologies
Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Ali Afshar Signature Series
The main problem was weight. The STi came
in at a porky 3309 pounds, 184 more than the HKS
Evo and 338 greater than the Buschur Evo. Plus,
Gidley conceded that he had no experience
launching the car from a standstill, a tough task
with a high-powered four-wheel-driver.
Nevertheless, the ESX car, replete with Öhlins
dampers, Cusco tower braces, and Hotchkis links,
anti-roll bars, and camber plates, did post the thirdquickest road-course time—49.1 seconds—proof
that Gidley and the aforementioned suspension
bits were a solid combination.
Around town, the ESX earned a four-star
drivability rating, garnering several raves for its ease
of use, including one from tech director Webster,
who described it as “tractable, with a very good
suspension.” There wasn’t much turbo lag, and the
car felt lighter than it was.
So although the ESX wasn’t as fast on the track
as it was on paper, it did impress us with its
everyday livability, especially since it had functioning A/C and a kickin’ Pioneer DVD navigation/stereo system. And despite the opinions of
some critical of the ESX’s over-the-top looks, most
of us found it to be clean and cool. Now if only
the track performance were less cool and more sizzling—then the $91,915 price tag wouldn’t need to
be put on ice.
—Ron Kiino
1/4-mile: 13.5 sec @ 106 mph
hen pro racer Memo Gidley arrived to drive
the Easy Street Motorsports (ESX) Ali Afshar
W
Signature Series STi, the little Subaru suddenly
became one of the odds-on favorites to take the
crown. After all, with more than 30 large in powertrain modifications—including a Cosworth
engine—and nearly 20 grand spent on suspension,
brake, and wheel-and-tire enhancements, the
slammed STi, with a claimed 450 horsepower, had
enough go-fast goodies to make a monkey look like
Speed Racer. With Gidley behind the wheel, the car
seemed like a sure thing.
But it finished fifth, and its shortcomings had
to do with straight-line performance. It posted the
second-slowest 0-to-60 time (5.4 seconds) and
second-weakest quarter-mile (13.5) in its class, the
former just 0.9-second quicker than Converse’s
curious pickup.
sedan
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $30,704 suspension: $14,750
Front brakes. . . . . StopTech 14.0 x 1.3-in vented, grooved discs;
StopTech 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stock 12.3 x 0.8-in vented discs;
Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Pagid Orange, R: AXXIS Ultimate
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3309 lb
NOVEMBER 2005
2004 Buschur Racing
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS
1/4-mile: 12.0 sec @ 116 mph
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
4th Place
itnessing the Buschur Evo RS launch from a
standstill never failed to prompt an astonW
ished head shake or dumbfounded giggle from
onlookers taking in the action at MIS’s pit lane. It
was akin to watching a cougar catapult after a
bunny on Animal Planet—full acceleration was
instantaneous, with all four contact patches tenaciously ripping up the tarmac with a claimed 393
horsepower and 380 pound-feet of torque.
Hurtling toward the quarter-mile as if it were
prey, the Buschur blew past the marker in 12.0
seconds at 116 mph—third quickest of the day—
and 0 to 60 whiffed by in 3.5 seconds, second
quickest behind the HKS Evo’s 3.3. The Buschur’s
best overall run of 109.8 seconds—good enough
for fourth overall—did not include its best 0-to-60
sedan
Front brakes. . . . . StopTech 13.1 x 1.3-in vented, grooved discs;
StopTech 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stock 11.8 x 0.9-in vented discs;
Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Pagid Orange, R: AXXIS Ultimate
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2971 lb
or quarter-mile performance; nor did it reflect its
top 140-to-0-mph braking distance of 692 feet or
quickest road-course time of 49.8 seconds; yet it
was a mistake-free run whose numbers were only
slightly behind those best segments.
With an as-tested price of $52,084, the
Buschur was considerably cheaper than this contest’s other Evo, the winning $86,788 HKS. Fortunately, cheaper didn’t mean lacking modifications.
Save for the stock turbo, engine mods to the 2.0liter were extensive and included upgraded
camshafts, fuel injectors, cylinder heads, and pistons, and ported intake and exhaust manifolds.
And despite a DMS North America strut and spring
kit, as well as 17-inch SSR wheels wearing 40-series
BFGs, the Buschur’s ride was no more jarring than
a stock Evo’s—a big reason the Buschur received
a four-star drivability rating.
Easy on the street, fast at the track, and reliable to boot—Dave Buschur should feel good
about his car’s performance, even if it didn’t land
him on the podium.
—Ron Kiino
3rd Place
2005 Forcedfed Lotus Elise
1/4-mile: 11.9 sec @ 121 mph
our office the Lotus Elise polarizes the
staff’s vision like a good set of Revos. Add more
Apowerround
with a turbocharger, and the varied opinions
start to get delivered with a bit of heat. Some felt
NOVEMBER 2005
THE TUNERS
targa
Front brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcon 12.9 x 1.1-in vented discs;
Alcon 4-piston calipers
Rear brakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcon 12.9 x 1.1-in vented discs;
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferodo Racing
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990 lb
the Hondata Elise’s stock setup.
If one were to put together all the Forcedfed
car’s best numbers, it would have won. Unfortunately, this Lotus was as inconsistent as were our
opinions of it.
—Tony Quiroga
AEM
310-484-2322
www.aempower.com
Flyin’ Miata
800-359-6957
www.flyinmiata.com
Hondata
310-782-8278
www.hondata.com
Powerworks
248-473-9675
www.powerworks.net
Buschur Racing
440-839-1900
www.buschurracing.com
Forcedfed
925-371-2288
www.forcedfed.com
Howell Automotive
800-531-2184
www.howellautomotive.com
Prototype Racing
310-320-3611
www.prototyperacing.com
Converse Engineering
207-693-4822
www.converseengineering.com
Hasport Performance
602-470-0065
www.hasport.com
Jackson Racing
888-888-4079
www.jacksonracing.com
Skunk2 Racing
951-808-9888
www.skunk2.com
Easy Street Motorsports
818-764-9800
www.esxmotorsports.com
HKS USA
310-491-3300
www.hksusa.com
Mini-Madness
503-466-6463
www.mini-madness.com
STaSIS Engineering
888-978-2747
www.stasisengineering.com
NOVEMBER 2005
131
the Forcedfed Elise delivered its power violently and
was a lot of work to drive. Others thought the power
delivery was tractable and far from insane, like a
regular Elise with twice the power.
After the event, we came up with some theories as to why we couldn’t agree. Early in the day,
few problems were reported. But as the day wore
on and the summer heat increased, the logbook
began to fill with drivability issues. Part-throttle
burps, stumbles, and sneezes that weren’t present
in the morning were rife by afternoon.
It might have been the heat coupled with an
aggressive engine-control map. Or could it have
been a claimed missed shift that zinged the engine
toward the rev limiter? (Still, a few complaints of
stumbling made it into the logbook before the
alleged missed shift occurred.) Either way, the turbocharged Elise was never as friendly as it was that
morning, and neither was the Forcedfed crew.
Even with its drivability issues, the Forcedfed
Lotus managed to post some impressive acceleration numbers. The 121-mph trap speed in the
quarter-mile was the highest of the day, and the 0to-100-mph and 100-to-140-mph times were the
best of the day. Braking was equally impressive with
a best-in-test stop of 525 feet from 140 mph, thanks
to larger rotors all around and four-piston calipers
up front. Brake feel was excellent, far better than
2nd Place
2005 Hondata/Prototype Racing
Lotus Elise
1/4-mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mph
s good as it is, the Lotus Elise isn’t immune to
improvement, and the Hondata version is proof.
The key element is a simple engine swap by Prototype Racing—a Honda (Acura RSX) K20A 2.0-liter
DOHC 16-valve aluminum four and six-speed
manual transmission in place of the stock 1.8-liter
Toyota four and six-speed. The engine swap alone
($11,000) would enhance the Elise’s hustle, but the
addition of a Jackson Racing supercharger ($3000),
Hondata ECU ($1000), Prototype Racing intercooler
($1000), and limited-slip differential make it a formidable street fighter.
The sum of these mods was a claimed 320
horsepower, at 9 psi of boost, yielding a succession
of sub-four-second 60-mph runs and low-12second quarter-miles. We were also impressed by
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
A
132
this car’s tractability on the street. Power delivery
was linear, plentiful, and easy to manage. There was
only one downside, but it was highly audible: At full
song, the supercharger could be heard in the next
county. One tester thought it sounded like “a Stuka
flying a raid over Warsaw, circa 1939.” This spawned
love or hate in all who experienced it: the gratification of boost tempered by a deluge of decibels.
Although the Hondata car gave a good account
of itself, in the end it seemed something of an unfinished symphony. The Elise was equipped with a
$6000 set of Öhlins adjustable shocks, but the
spring rates were stock. Similarly, a set of Yokohama
Advan Neova tires enhanced grip, but stock wheels
limited the contact patch, and worse, stock brake
pads limited braking performance. This last was the
Elise’s undoing. Only the HKS Evo was quicker
through the road course, but vast stopping distances, as well as a fourth-place high-speed-acceleration time, kept the Hondata entry off the top
spot on the podium.
—Tony Swan
targa
Engine type: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve
brakes: stock wheels/tires: $834 body/interior: $850
Front brakes . . . . . stock 11.3 x 1.0-in vented, cross-drilled discs;
Rear brakes . . . . . stock 11.3 x 1.0-in vented, cross-drilled discs;
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stock
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 in
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 lb
NOVEMBER 2005
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE RESULTS
NOVEMBER 2005
133
1st Place
2005 HKS USA
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS
1/4-mile: 11.8 sec @ 116 mph
HKS Evo had all the makings we expected of
Evo: $35,464 in powertrain
Tmods,hea worldbeating
including a more efficient turbo that pumps
sedan
Front brakes . . . . . . Endless 13.6 x 1.2-in vented, grooved discs;
Endless 6-piston calipers
Rear brakes . . . . . . Endless 13.0 x 1.2-in vented, grooved discs;
Endless 4-piston calipers
Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Endless CCR
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3125 lb
SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE
21 psi of boost, engine displacement stroked from
2.0 to 2.3 liters, and all the necessary beefing up of
the differentials and clutch to withstand the force
of 481 claimed horses. A stiffer suspension, larger
brakes, and sticky 265/35R-18 Yokohama Advan
Neova tires on Volk Racing wheels added up to
$14,478. Finishing it off were various carbon-fiber
pieces and a set of racing seats, pushing the price
to $86,788.
But as it turned out, the most important part
of the HKS Evo was driver Nobuteru (Nob, for “No
One Better”) Taniguchi—HKS’s lanky D1 drift champ
who was still en route from Japan while we were
trying out this Evo that he had not yet driven.
We appreciated the massive bite of the brakes
and the seemingly unending amount of grip from
the wide Yokos. But we noted a violent shaking of
the steering wheel at idle, an extremely grabby
clutch, and a laggy engine that didn’t wake up until
about 4000 rpm, so we settled on a three-star
drivability rating.
Amazingly, Taniguchi, who had the least
amount of familiarization with the course—and usually drives sideways—beat all other drivers’ first runs.
Furthermore, he could have retired after his first
run and still finished second overall. But during his
five attempts, Nob finished the day with the best
times from 0 to 60 mph and in the quarter-mile
(3.3 and 11.8 seconds); he was quickest on the road
course (48.3 seconds), and his overall time of 102.9
seconds was three seconds better than the secondplace Hondata Elise.
As it turns out, Taniguchi’s nickname is quite
appropriate.
—Dave VanderWerp
NOVEMBER 2005
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO US
We cook our own birthday cake
on the broiling asphalt at Indy.
BY JOHN PHILLIPS
PHOTOGRAPHY BY STEVE ROSSINI AND SARAH BERRETT
ostly, our 50th-birthday
party at Indianapolis Raceway Park will be remembered for the hellish heat. Jeez,
you’d have thought somebody
might have warned us that it was
hot in Indiana in late July. But it will
also be remembered for the action,
which was continual and intense
and added considerably to the
hellish heat.
In one corner of IRP was a huge
autocross, featuring 1000 combatants driving manufacturer-supplied
cars ranging from Mini Coopers to
Dodge Vipers. There was bracket
racing on the drag strip, at one point
pitting a 1982 Cadillac Coupe de
Ville with a NASCAR motor against a
1957 BMW Isetta 300 small enough
to serve as the Caddy’s dinghy.
M
148
Then there was a small concours
that ran the peculiar gamut from a
100-point ’63 Corvette split-window
coupe to a 1997 Suzuki Tracker with
taped-on pinstripes. There were
speeches—four or five, all mercifully
brief—plus a rock-’n’-roll band, the
movie The Cannonball Run, and Qand-As with the wilting editors:
Reader: “Mr. Yates, how much
did you make on this Cannonball
thingamabobby?”
Yates: “Who let this guy in?”
Reader: “Mr. Bedard, which is
the most famous Plymouth Hemi
model ever?”
Bedard: “I was told there’d be
no math.”
And there were readers getting
rides around IRP’s oval in a Porsche
Carrera GT and a McLaren F1 GTR
and a Mercedes SLR McLaren. In
truth, the SLR was intended as an
unmoving display, but when an
organizer innocently asked who was
around to drive the thing, tech
editor Aaron Robinson replied, “Oh,
I guess I could give it a shot.” His
first ride-along victim was reader
Steve Cage, who owns not only a
Shelby GT350 “Eleanor” movie car
but also 60 other renovated muscle
cars. “Gosh, we went fast,” recalled
a naïve Cage. “Then Aaron missed a
turn, and we were in the grass. I
wasn’t expecting that. Was that part
of the ride?” (Check these pages to
see if Mercedes gives us any more
test cars.)
Then an episode of Pinks was
taped at the drag strip, pitting an old
Mustang against an old Camaro,
neither of which was driven by
Rupert from Survivor, who showed
up for reasons unclear. Then managing editor Steve Spence—who had
been voted most likely to crash into
the timing booth during his
autocross efforts—instead outdrove
45 or so entrants, until, as he put it,
“a full-figured and aggressive female
beat me hugely with a 31.4-second
time, which inspired the grinning TV
guys to rush over in hopes of
recording my embarrassment.”
“How do you feel about being
beaten by a girl?” a crew-cut cameraman asked him.
“I assure you,” Spence replied,
“that was no girl.”
Thirty-nine-year-old Philip Heacock from Louisville, Kentucky, ran
only two laps on Saturday (in a
Mustang GT) and two laps on
Sunday (in a Honda S2000) yet won
the autocross overall. He
autocrosses only once per year.
There’s a lesson there. Call if you
know what it is.
On Saturday, we were at the
track for 16 hours. If you missed the
party, we plan a repeat performance
in 2055. Spence says he’s not
coming—unless that autocross
woman stays home.
NOVEMBER 2005
▼ In a speech to the sweaty crowd
on Saturday night, David E. Davis Jr.
said one of his greatest regrets was
quitting as C/D’s editor/publisher
when CBS bought the magazine in
1985. Right after, current editor-inchief Csere could be seen hunting
for a handgun.
▲ The owner of this Bill Thomas–designed Cheetah says it’s one of 16 originals remaining. Restored two years
ago, the Cheetah recently bagged a major trophy in a huge concours sponsored by some magazine called Road &
Truck or something.
▼ Kevin Rearn’s 1968 VW Karmann-Ghia is entirely original, still sporting
its factory-applied Regatta Blue paint. Rearn won the Editor’s Choice award
for the decade 1965 to 1974.
“Karmann-Ghias suck,” bitched Brock Yates. “They’re slow.”
“Yeah, but they’re pretty,” countered art director Jeff Dworin, pointing to
the VW’s wooden luggage rack. In the end, Yates was outvoted.
▲ Brock Yates narrated The Cannonball Run, the 1981 film for which he
wrote the screenplay, on Saturday night. “I think Siskel and Ebert decreed it
was among the 10 worst films ever produced,” Yates recalled. “I was outraged. I called to tell them, ‘Hey, you bastards, it’s easily in the top five.’ ”
▲
Best in Show (and winner of
both the Editors’ and People’s
Choice awards for the decade 1955
to 1964) was this ’63 Corvette splitwindow coupe, with original everything—paint, clock, knockoff wheels,
and lead hammer. As Roger Crawford, 54, accepted his many awards,
he choked up, explaining that the
car actually belongs to his wife,
Linda, who has owned it for 17
years. Suffering from multiple sclerosis, she can no longer drive the
Corvette, so Roger brought it to IRP
in her honor. He thus also won our
Sentimental Favorite award, for
which we had prepared no trophy
whatsoever.
NOVEMBER 2005
▼ Even Big Schwag showed up—you know, the guy who screams incoherently throughout every episode of Monster Garage? (“You gotta be kiddin’
me!”) Mr. Schwag was interviewed on Car and Driver Radio by host Alan
Taylor (left). Assistant art director Dan Winter said, “I haven’t heard that
much shouting since Csaba took the tech department to lunch.”
▲ Former Sebring, Le Mans, and Daytona 24-hour winner Hurley Haywood (behind the wheel), looking more like Hollywood Haywood, showed
up in a Porsche Carrera GT. Readers stood in line for over an hour to cadge
a ride and an autograph.
▲
▼ Cadillac race-car driver Andy Pilgrim gave rides in his thundering SCCA
Speed World Challenge CTS-V. Among the members of the audience, the
Caddy infamously became known as “the car that came closest to knocking
down the wall.” C/D readers viewed this as a positive.
Taylor Oliver of St. Petersburg,
Florida, knew he’d make the magazine with his custom T-shirt. He
was on hand to watch another
longtime reader, John Hill, be first
up on Saturday to challenge executive editor Tony Swan’s autocross
time. Hill won, then salted Swan’s
wound: “I’ve only autocrossed
twice in my life—once in an MG
Midget and once in a Honda 600!”
“Oh, sure,” snapped Swan.
“Another goddamn ringer with
■
Midget experience.”
▲ This exquisite 1937 Ford woody looked like something Boyd Coddington
might have conjured for the Beach Boys. Instead, it was assembled by a
privateer in Cincinnati, where the beaches are not so good. It’s quite a
mongrel, featuring a small-block Chev and a Mustang front suspension.
THE WINNERS
▲ We watched the owner of this 1957 BMW Isetta 300 buzz down the
strip, but our attention span began to wander at the 30-second mark, so we
left to buy soggy hot dogs.
▲
Seventies-era
rockers Grand Funk
Railroad entertained
on Saturday night. We
tried to persuade managing editor Steve
Spence to play air
guitar on stage, but he
claimed he was all out
of air.
▲ Steve Cage showed two stunning
1970 Barracudas. The black one was
restored in Danville, Indiana, by Ken
Mosier, who applied the finishing
touches only hours prior to arriving
at IRP. The Plymouth was correct
right down to its rock-hard Goodyear
Polyglas GTs—a half-million-dollar car
if it had a Hemi instead of a 440 Six
Pack.
Bracket Racing
1. Angelo Taylor
Kokomo, Indiana
2. Peter Schwarzbach
Chicago, Illinois
3. Roy Rapp IV
Martinsville, Indiana
Autocross
1. Philip Heacock
Louisville, Kentucky
2. Roger Ice
Indianapolis, Indiana
3. Geoffrey Chambers
Fishers, Indiana
Five-Decade Concours
Best of Show
1963 Chevrolet Corvette
Roger Crawford
Brownsburg, Indiana
NOVEMBER 2005
SHORT TAKE
Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
Heavy on style, light on adrenaline.
BY TONY SWAN
PHOTOGRAPHY BY JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive,
4-passenger, 3-door coupe
Engine type: SOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron
block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 cu in, 2378cc
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.4 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3331 lb
Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.9 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 sec
Top speed (drag limited). . . . . . . . . . 132 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 ft
EPA fuel economy, city driving . . . . . . 23 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy. . . . . . . . 20 mpg
NOVEMBER 2005
hatever the sport may be, for
every major-league player,
there are a half-dozen others toiling
in the unglamorous obscurity of the
minors. At a glance, they seem to possess the same style and athletic grace
of the first-rank guys, but on closer
scrutiny, their performance doesn’t
quite measure up.
The same is true in the world of
affordable sports coupes. The hotter
GT versions get the spotlight and the
W
headlines, and the lesser editions quietly account for most of the sales.
Which brings us to the Mitsubishi
Eclipse GS. It lacks the power and
moves of the GT, but it plays for a lot
less money, and to the casual eye it’s
indistinguishable from its more
potent teammate.
This last is obviously important,
and it’s equally obvious that Mitsu has
stepped up its styling game. The new
Eclipse discards the cerebral “geomechanical” strakes and angles of the
gen-three car—a shape that could be
considered sexy only by Stevie
Wonder—for smooth, fluid lines that
advance the design evolution of gen
two as though gen three never happened. It’s a shape anyone could call
sexy, Stevie included. Remember, half
of life is just showing up. The other
half is looking good when you do.
The machinery sheltered by this
seductive skin owes much to a sibling, the Galant sedan, including its
platform and powertrains. The 3.8liter V-6 that distinguishes the Eclipse
GT delivers a considerably heftier
punch than its sedan counterpart—
263 horsepower versus 230—but the
output of the 2.4-liter four used in the
GS is all but identical: 162 horsepower
(versus 160) and 162 pound-feet of
torque (versus 157).
The Mitsu SOHC four-banger isn’t
quite as contemporary as some of its
contemporaries. The twin-cam 16valve fours in the Acura RSX, Chevy
Cobalt SS, Hyundai Tiburon GS, Saturn
Ion Red Line, and Scion tC are all-aluminum, whereas the Mitsubishi’s
block is still composed of good old
cast iron, which contributes to the GS’s
portly performance at the scales: 3331
pounds. In contrast, the last RSX we
tested, a Type-S (C/D, September
2005), weighed in at 2843 pounds.
However, the top end of the
Eclipse four is fully up to date, thanks
to Mitsubishi’s MIVEC, an acronym for
“Mitsubishi Innovative Valve timing
and lift Electronic Control,” which is
how you say VTEC if you happen to
toil under the diamond-star banner.
Paired with a five-speed manual transmission, the four-cylinder powers the
Eclipse to 60 mph in 8.2 seconds.
That is not thrill-ride territory, but adequate if haste isn’t a major issue.
The same applies to this car’s
handling traits. The suspension tuning
is a tad softer than the Eclipse GT’s,
with a slightly smaller (by 0.04 inch)
rear anti-roll bar and a little less contact patch to handle cornering loads:
225/50R-17 Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires
versus the optional 235/45R-18s on
the GT. Still, if the GS rolls a little more
than the GT in hard cornering, it sticks
nearly as well, pulling 0.82 g on the
skidpad versus 0.81 for the Eclipse GT
we tested last July. And its braking performance—178 feet from 70 mph—is
four feet better than the GT’s, stacking
up with the best in this class. Could
the GT’s additional 229 pounds have
something to do with this? You bet.
Beyond all this, and the higher
fuel-economy ratings that go with
the four-cylinder engine, there is one
distinct GS performance advantage:
Torque steer, a problem brought on
by the GT’s greater power, is absent
here.
The other GS advantage, of
course, is at the bank. With a base
price of $19,994, the GS undercuts
the GT by $4300. That’s far from the
bottom of this market. You can strap
on a Scion tC for as little as $16,715,
and a Hyundai Tiburon GT with V-6
power starts at $18,594. But the
Eclipse GS has a goodly array of comfort and convenience features baked
into its base price, plus the allure of
a shape that is arguably the segment’s sexiest. Hard to put a value
■
on that.
151
LONG-TERM TEST CADILLAC SRX V-8
Growing pains taint,
but do not despoil,
our affection
for this two-time
5Best winner.
BY RON KIINO
PHOTOGRAPHY BY NICK SAY
L
ess than a month into its
stay here, and with a little
over 4000 miles on the
odometer, our long-term
Cadillac SRX V-8 sportute was deemed the carriage of
choice for a round-trip run from
Ann Arbor to Boston, with tech
editor and recent hire Dave VanderWerp at the wheel, and his
then fiancée, Marie, riding
shotgun. It was a perfectly sensible choice, not only because the
$60,645 Caddy needed to accrue
miles, but also because it was an
ideal long-tripper—after all, for a
starting price of $50,830, it was
equipped with a gutsy 320-hp
Northstar V-8 and leather front
bucket seats with heat and eightway power adjustments. Plus, it
had $9815 worth of pampering
options: all-wheel drive, a navigation system, a third-row power
seat, magnetic ride control, HID
headlamps, a DVD player with an
LCD screen and wireless headphones (“Sorry, sweetie, did you
say something?”), and a Bose
stereo with XM satellite radio and
an in-dash six-CD changer.
Cruising cross country couldn’t
come any better, or so Dave and
Marie thought.
At a rest stop off a New York
toll road, our travelers returned
from visits to the lav, only to discover that the SRX viewed the
idea of rest stops literally. They
fired up the engine, but on exiting
the parking lot, it stalled, as if to
154
say, “No! Enough for one day!”
All attempts to restart failed.
Thinking that maybe OnStar
could wake up the fatigued
Caddy, VanderWerp pushed the
magic blue button and was
instructed by an unsurprised
operator to leave the key (which
was stuck in the column) in the
“on” position for 20 minutes and
then the “off” position for five
seconds. Then he could try to
restart the vehicle.
That oddball fix didn’t work,
so VanderWerp disconnected and
then reconnected the battery, a
last-ditch effort that worked, but
just temporarily. Later on in
Boston, the SRX subsequently
stalled several more times. VanderWerp was able to keep it going
by disconnecting and reconnecting the battery, but a more
lasting fix was certainly called
for. The SRX was ditched at
Frost Motors, a Boston-area
Caddy dealership, while VanderWerp and his fiancée were
forced to fly home.
A week later, the perplexed
service department at Frost
could not find the culprit and
was set to release the SRX with
a no-see-um bill of health. So
VanderWerp flew back for a
second attempt to drive our
wagon home, only to be
stranded en route in Albany,
New York, when the SRX quit
again. At that point, VanderWerp—now used to this rou-
155
crude. For us, the service indicator came
on at about every 10,000 miles; that frequency of course depends on the type of
driving you do.
The SRX is an elegant, fast, comfortable SUV that has few peers. When new,
it ripped from 0 to 60 in 7.1 seconds and
through the quarter-mile in 15.4 at 92 mph.
Those are quick numbers for an SUV,
especially one that weighs 4711 pounds.
More impressive was the SRX’s top speed
of 141 mph—faster than many of today’s
so-called sporty cars. When we retested the
SRX at 40,000 miles, it was not only
quicker but also faster. Zero to 60 dropped
to 6.8 ticks, the quarter improved to 15.2
at 93, and top speed rose to 144. Who says
getting old slows you down? Moreover,
braking and skidpad grip improved over
the long haul, with the former dropping
from 188 feet to 183 in 70-to-0 halts and
the latter jumping from 0.78 g to 0.79.
Even better was that our intemperate hotrodding still netted a respectable 17 mpg.
And, yes, there was plenty of hot-rodding, evidenced by the abundance of praise
heaped on the SRX’s ability to quickly
gobble asphalt. Glowing logbook entries
included everything from “accelerates
better than you’d expect” and “plenty of
power” to “I love the Northstar!” and “terrific traveling companion.” Applause was
also handed out to the five-speed automatic, which shifted seamlessly and made
mountain driving worry-free, thanks to the
manumatic feature that enabled the driver
to hold a lower gear.
In addition to being impressed with the
SRX’s smooth and quiet highway ride and
surprising nimbleness on curvy roads, we
also admired its edgy “art and science”
exterior design, its ample cargo space, the
flexibility of its three rows of seats, the
honkin’ Bose stereo, and the DVD entertainment system that made long hauls short
and kids quiet.
On the flip side, the SRX had a handful
of traits we didn’t fancy. The most
common complaints had to do with the
stiff price tag and the ultra-wide rocker
panels that, when dirty, soiled passengers’
pants during ingress and egress. Tech
director Webster pointed out that the huge
step-over often induced slips or spills after
touching down on snow- or ice-covered
ground. The interior drew a bit of arched
eyebrow for an odd mix of angles and textures, a trim and instrument panel that
MARY SEELHORST
tine—found the nearest airport and flew
home. (We did not tally the $1800 in airfares into the SRX’s service costs.)
According to Otto Cadillac in Albany,
our SRX had been born with a bad enginecontrol module, a defect that required 10
days in the inspection pits to detect. Like
a clogged artery, the problem was physically small, its consequence huge. GM
picked up the bill under warranty, of
course, the first of three instances in which
the General was forced to delve into its
pockets. The second, at 15,842 miles was
to convince the huge UltraView sunroof
that “close” did not mean “crack,” and the
third, at 20,411 miles, was to replace a
faulty key and remote. So the lesson here
seems to be that although technology can
do lots of trick things, it can also play irritating tricks.
Still, there was good news, too. If you
can overlook a rather steep $465 unscheduled service at 31,589 miles that required
replacing the brake pads and resurfacing
the front and rear rotors, our three scheduled service visits were cheap, totaling just
$236. Like many cars today, the SRX has
an oil-life monitoring system that prompts
the driver when it’s time to change the
RANTS AND RAVES
PATTI MAKI
Getting to something as simple as resetting the
trip odometer shouldn’t send me to the
owner’s manual.
K.C. COLWELL
The rocker panels are from a Lotus Elise. The
SRX needs an EZ-lift chair that swivels to the
side so you can get in and out without dirtying
your pants.
DAN WINTER
Great car to drive, smooth and powerful. The
all-wheel drive and the Pirelli snow tires make
it almost unstoppable on winter roads.
■ The SRX got a ride on a flatbed early
in its life. Passing hecklers were skeptical
of Cadillac’s premium-brand status when
they spotted us pushing our brand-new
60K wagon to the side of the road.
STEVE SPENCE
After a week in Seattle in a Nissan Armada, I
picked this up at the airport. By way of contrast, the SRX felt like a sports car.
AARON KILEY
The SRX was quite stable driving through
Canada with winds gusting at 20 to 30 miles
an hour.
CSABA CSERE
This machine is a great highway cruiser with a
decent ride, responsive controls, and plenty of
power.
TONY SWAN
Cargo space is generous, and the smell of
Nuance leather is as seductive as ever.
156
NOVEMBER 2005
AARON KILEY
didn’t seem to go with the price, a wobbly
gearshift, second- and third-row headrests
that blocked the rearward view, an underthe-dash “knee protector” that in fact hurt
knees more than it protected them, a fussy
trip computer that required five times as
many steps as most other cars’, and a high
cowl that, in cahoots with the pushed-forward A-pillar, made parking a challenge.
Several editors noted that after 40,000
miles of service, the SRX began to exhibit
some interior rattles as well as a few
squeaks from the steering column.
Apart from the fiasco with Dave and
Marie when the SRX was a puppy, and a
few squawks as it aged, the SRX proved
to be a reliable and completely competent
SUV for our various and often demanding
needs and a true performer in rain, shine,
sleet, or snow. Sure, there are a few things
we’d change about the Caddy—the dysfunctional trip computer and the snowboard rocker panels come to mind—but
there’s plenty we wouldn’t touch, namely,
the velvety V-8, the sporty handling, and
the cushy ride.
All in all, our long-term SRX V-8’s performance will help, not hurt, its chances of
securing a third-straight 5Best Trucks
trophy. And even as GM’s employee-discount deal was scheduled to be called off
September 6, screaming deals on an SRX
are likely not out of the question, especially
since the cars are flying off dealer lots like
penguins. A sensible Caddy at a sensible
■
price—what more could you want?
2005 CADILLAC SRX V-8
wagon
Engine type: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads,
port fuel injection
Transmission . . . . . 5-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.4 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4711 lb
Performance:
new
40,000
Zero to 60 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 sec
6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3 sec
17.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 sec
7.2 sec
15.2 sec
Standing 1/4 -mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 sec
@ 92 mph @ 93 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 ft
183 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . 0.78 g
0.79 g
Top speed (drag limited). . . . . . . . . . 141 mph
144 mph
EPA fuel economy, city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 mpg
Unscheduled oil additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 qt
Service and repair stops:
Scheduled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Unscheduled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Operating costs (for 40,000 miles):
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $236
Normal wear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $465
Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
Gasoline (@ $2.41 per gallon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5671
Life expectancies (estimated from 40,000-mile test):
Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000 miles
Front brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 miles
Rear brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000 miles
BAUBLES AND BOLT-ONS
HAND-HELD NAV SYSTEM: The
problem with most hand-held GPS
navigation systems is that they typically don’t have a map of the entire
U.S., so you have to hook the GPS
system to a personal computer and
load specific regions depending on
where you want to go. That can be
a pain. The new $799 Mio Technology Mio 269 (510-252-6950,
PST; www.miogps.com), however,
comes preloaded with detailed
maps of the U.S.—including Alaska
and Hawaii—and Canada. All you
have to do is remove this one from
the box, and it’s ready to go.
A handy and effective windshield
mount holds the Mio 269 at eye level,
and an included 12-volt plug powers
it through the cigarette lighter. The
GPS antenna is built in, as is a battery that lasts about an hour per
charge.
We took the Mio to some remote
Lower Michigan dirt roads and were
surprised to find that even those
NOVEMBER 2005
lightly traveled roads were shown on
the color screen. We had the same
results when we tried the 269 in
Utah. So from our experience, anywhere there’s a road, it’s probably in
the Mio.
Unfortunately, we found the
menus difficult to navigate and nonintuitive. Also, we couldn’t figure out
how to set the device to avoid
sending us on city streets. On a few
trips, we ended up needlessly slogging through cities rather than
whisking by on the highway.
But with in-car systems costing
about two grand, for the money, the
Mio—it can also store and play music
files—isn’t a bad choice.
plugs into a cigarette lighter, gently
and securely holds an iPod or iPod
Mini, and broadcasts the music
through one of four selectable radio
frequencies. It’s a great idea, and it
worked extremely well. You can find
it at CompUSA, and it costs $50.
iPOD CAR KIT: If you’re an owner
of an Apple iPod, the Sakar International iConcepts 3-in-1 iPod car kit,
consisting of base, charger, and radio
transmitter, is the ultimate way to
listen to your iPod while in the car. It
BRAKE-DUST REPELLENT: Brake
dust not only looks bad but can permanently discolor your wheels.
Michelin says its new Brake Dust
Repellent ($7 for 15 ounces at AutoZone stores) keeps dust from
adhering to the wheels. The company says each application lasts
about two weeks. We first tried the
product on the long-term SRX but
found the Caddy didn’t produce
much brake dust in a two-week
period. So we next tried it on a Volvo
XC70 that spits off copious amounts
of brake dust. We cleaned both front
wheels and applied the brake-dust
repellent to only one. After 12 days,
we didn’t see any difference in the
amount of brake dust on the wheels
with or without the Michelin repellent.
157
Gloss over
your
Triumphs
SHORT TAKE
Now it’s easy to add that
“just waxed” gloss to
y o u r Tr i u m p h , J a g u a r ,
M G o r a n y o t h e r c a r.
The Glosser® is the
w o r l d ’s f i r s t m i c r o f i b e r
cleaning wipe saturated
with wax. So everytime
you wip e your car clean,
you add another layer of
glossy protective wax.
BMW
325i
Think of it as 330i lite.
BY DAVE VANDERWERP
ere’s a question we’d like ESPN to ask some
NASCAR driver on one of its illuminating
jock-sniffing quiz shows: Name a car under
35 grand that employs weight-saving magnesium
in its engine block, increases efficiency by varying
valve lift instead of merely using a throttle plate,
and comes standard with pricey run-flat tires.
Time’s up. The answer? BMW’s least expensive
U.S. car, the $30,995 325i.
That’s just the start of a long list of standard
equipment on the ’06 325i. Also included are a sixspeed manual transmission (previously five-speed
only), an impressive 10-speaker stereo including
two subwoofers, dual automatic climate controls,
front and rear curtain airbags, rain-sensing wipers,
and automatic headlights. The only obvious omission is a folding rear seat—that’s still a $475 option.
Overall, we like the 3’s new styling, with three
sharp pleats ironed onto its profile. Although its
size has grown 2.2 inches in length and 3.0 inches
H
The Glos ser comes with 5
disposable wipes to a pack.
Available atPepBoys,AutoZone,
Checker, Schuck’s, Kragen,
StraussAuto,Murray’s AutoStores,
Fred Meyer, G.I.Joe’s, National
AutoStores,ChampionAutoStores,
AutoBarn, Benny’s,and through
AceandTrueValue HardwareStores.
From the folks who brought you The Absorber ®
©2005 CleanTools® • 800-654-3933 • theglosser.com
NOVEMBER 2005
in width, this tester weighed just 48
more pounds than the last 325i we
tested (C/D, March 2004).
Horsepower is up to 215, 31 more
than in the previous model, and
torque has been kicked up by 10 to
185 pound-feet, largely because of a
half-liter displacement increase to 3.0
(now the same as the 330i). Furthermore, this horsepower number is just
10 less than in the previous 330i, but
40 fewer than in the latest version,
due to a single-stage (versus three
stage) induction system.
The 325i has shorter gearing than
both the 330i and the previous 325i,
but sixth gear is taller than the previous fifth gear. Too bad the shift
throws aren’t shorter. They’re a bit
rubbery as well. We wish the short
shifter from the 2003–05 330i with
Performance package were an option.
The added power and more
aggressive gearing give straight-line
performance a swift kick to 6.1 seconds from 0 to 60 mph and 14.7 seconds at 94 mph through the quartermile. This 325i blows away the
last-generation car and is also quicker
than the previous 330i model.
BMWs typically have long options
lists, and this latest 325i, decked out
with everything on that list, would
cost a stunning $47,715. Forget that.
Our test car came to us wearing just
the Sport package ($1600) and Sirius
satellite radio ($595) for $33,190, and
with the many standard features, we
didn’t feel gypped. This car also had
the no-cost aluminum interior-trim
option, which in fact we prefer over
the two wood choices.
The Sport package consists of a
stiffer suspension, 17-inch wheels and
tires (versus standard 16s) with
stickier Pirelli rubber (225/45 front
and 255/40 rear), extremely grippy
front sport seats with thigh and bolster adjustments, and a fatter steering
wheel. Lumbar adjustment is not
included, but we found the manual
seats extremely supportive and prefer
them to those in the current M3. The
Sport package thankfully doesn’t
include the active-steering system that
automatically adjusts the steering ratio
based on vehicle speed (as it does on
5- and 6-series models), because we
prefer the feel of the standard
steering.
At 0.87 g, skidpad grip was
between that of the latest two 325i’s
we’ve tested (C/D, January 2001 and
March 2004). Because of increased
contact patches and improved ABS,
the ’06 car’s braking distance, at 161
feet, is 11 feet better than the March
2004 tester’s.
The universally praised 3-series
ride-and-handling balance is still
intact. That’s a relief, considering
BMW had to work around the stiffness of the run-flat tires. However, this
latest setup feels a little stiffer than the
outgoing model’s, and when successive road irregularities of a large
variety are encountered, the ride can
get harsh. At the limit, there is more
understeer than we recall in the last
car, but there is still some characteristic BMW neutrality, achieved in part
by a weight distribution of 49.9 front
and 50.1 rear.
Despite the size, weight, horsepower, and displacement increases,
city fuel economy is unchanged at 20
mpg and highway actually improved
1 mpg to 30. On a 300-mile highway
slog, we averaged an impressive 31
mpg with the cruise set between 70
and 80 mph. Overall, we got 25 mpg.
But more important, the new 3
got its crown back in our October
“$35,000 Sports Sedans” comparo
after being unseated by the Infiniti
■
G35 last year.
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive,
5-passenger, 4-door sedan
Engine type: DOHC 24-valve inline-6, magnesium-and-aluminum block and aluminum
head, port fuel injection
Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . 183 cu in, 2996cc
Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108.7 in
Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3348 lb
Zero to 60 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 sec
Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . 147 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 ft
EPA fuel economy, city driving . . . . . . 20 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy. . . . . . . . 25 mpg
SPORT
Joie Chitwood’s
Indianapolis
Thrill Show
An heir to the legendary daredevil act
finds a place in the Brickyard’s front office.
(Hey, Joie, keep your helmet close by.)
BY BOB ZELLER
PHOTOGRAPHY BY TOM STRATMAN
162
T
he 2005 racing season was Joie
Chitwood III’s first as president of the
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and it
seemed at times to mimic the famous
automotive daredevil and stunt show
his grandfather brought to America’s heartland a half-century ago, particularly when
Bernie Ecclestone arrived last June with
his clown act and presented a six-car precision-driving exhibition instead of the
Formula 1 race he had promised.
All three major Indy events were
indeed spectacles, with the rotten meat in
the middle sandwiched by Danica
Patrick’s sensational rookie performance
in the Indy 500 and the heartwarming win
by Indiana’s own Tony Stewart in the
Brickyard 400. It was fortunate for Chitwood that NASCAR runs an efficient, lowmaintenance turnkey operation, because
he was preoccupied most of the summer
with the high-maintenance Europeans and
a frenzied effort to recover from the
greatest auto-racing fiasco of modern
times, when 14 of 20 cars refused to run
the June 19 Formula 1 race because of
problems with their Michelin tires. Nine
days later, Michelin offered refunds to
ticket holders, and Joel Scott “Joie III”
Chitwood, 36, tackled the formidable
logistical challenge with the relentless zeal
that he brings to all his
endeavors. On July 15,
IMS unveiled its plan, with
most ticket holders simply
receiving a credit to their
accounts. “I have to
applaud Michelin for stepping up,” Chitwood said in
late July. “Obviously,
that’s the only organization
that has stepped up so far.”
The Europeans—the
FIA sanctioning body and
Formula 1 itself—played a shell game in
July that ultimately concluded that no one
was to blame for the June farce except the
state of Indiana, which has a law on the
books that prohibits anyone from knowingly putting someone at risk, and thus
meant that the boycotting teams “could
have faced serious legal difficulties” had
they raced, according to the FIA.
The most striking irony of the debacle
was the profound lack of control that Chitwood and IMS CEO Tony George had in
the matter. They seemed utterly powerless.
It was a point that Chitwood underscored
in a stone-faced press conference after the
event. “The fact we had no control over
what occurred today is our greatest disappointment,” he confessed.
George is so much
about control that he’s been
in the middle of a debilitating open-wheel racing
war that’s gone on for
almost a decade now so he
can control the speedway
and the Indy 500. At the
same time, he spent about
$40 million to carve out a
Formula 1 road course at
the speedway, and he
spends about $15 million a
year to bring over Bernie and the gang
once a year, hand them the keys, and
submit to a trashing fit for a spring-break
hotel room.
In 2004, the speedway’s vaunted reputation for speedy, efficient crash response
took a hit in the wake of the excruciatingly
slow response of the Formula 1 rescue
team after Ralf Schumacher’s crash in the
banked Turn 13 (Turn One on the oval).
The 2005 debacle was spawned by a tire
failure that sent Schumacher back into the
same wall, same turn. Neither the rescue
controversy nor the race boycott was
viewed as the speedway’s fault, since it had
no control.
Back in the day, a crustier promoter,
someone in the mold of an Earl Baltes,
Indianapolis Motor Speedway president Joie Chitwood III (left), photographed at his office in May,
spent his childhood summers performing in his grandfather’s famous thrill show. In 1984, a cameraman
for the television show That’s Incredible! captured 15-year-old Joie III’s most daring stunt.
163
would have stopped the proceedings cold
by blocking the track with tow trucks or
locking the gates to keep those rascals in
until they settled up fair. Chitwood’s carny
background would seem to make him the
perfect candidate for that kind of modernday character—someone in the mold of a
Bill France Sr., who at the age of 59, in
reaction to a boycott by drivers over perceived safety concerns, strapped on a
helmet and ran 175 mph at Talladega. Chitwood, however, is all about management
professionalism and polish, enhanced by
an abundance of enthusiasm and backed
by an MBA degree from the University of
South Florida that included a summer
studying history at Queens College at
Cambridge, England. The only thing Chitwood controlled on June 19 was himself,
and he did a commendable job of that.
“Well, obviously, in the short span of
Joie III sits on the shoulders of his father, Joie Jr., with his grandfather, George Rice “Joie” Chitwood, standing by in this early-1970s photograph. At left, Joie sits in the miniature Indianapolis
racer he drove in thrill-show performances.
seven months since I was promoted to
president in December, we’ve had some
very good highs and some very bad lows,”
Chitwood said. He is known, however, for
resilience. He has been bounced around
before, mostly as a third-generation stunt
performer in his grandfather’s thrill show,
spending his teenaged summers as the
“Human Battering Ram,” and living with
a name that was a result of a typograph-
ical error.
Joie’s grandfather was born George
Rice Chitwood on April 14, 1912, the day
before the Titanic sank, and did not
become “Joie” until he was 25. The first
Chitwood had already raced the full season
of 1936 under his real name when he
entered the Central States Racing Association series in 1937, driving a sprint car
owned by the Lawhon brothers of St.
NOVEMBER 2005
YOU
STAND
IN ‘EM.
SKU# 111536
Chitwood’s thrill show.”
For more than 50 years, the Joie Chitwood Thrill Show was part of the fabric
of American culture. It was part of the plot
in the 1950 movie To Please a Lady, starring Clark Gable and Barbara Stanwyck,
and a generation later was featured in the
1973 James Bond thriller Live and Let
Die. In the 1980s, it was featured on the
television show Miami Vice.
As many as 110,000 people packed
Soldier Field in Chicago for a single presentation in the 1950s. An estimated 25million-to-30-million people saw the
show during its 55-year run, which ended
in 1998. At the height of its popularity in
the 1950s, five separate shows toured the
country. Local newspapers ran ads with
photos of the Chitwood stuntmen under a
headline that shouted: “These Men Are
Candidates for DEATH!” When one of
those shows played in Butte, Montana,
around 1953, teenager Robert “Evel”
Knievel was captivated by Chitwood’s
showmanship and knew at that moment
what his life’s work had to be.
The show became a family tradition.
Parents, who as kids in the 1950s had seen
Chitwood’s smartly dressed thrill drivers
do Precision Driving and the Slide for
Life, took their own children to see the
same stunts in the 1970s and 1980s.
Nowhere was family more evident than in
the show itself. Chitwood’s sons, Joie Jr.
and Tim, grew up with it and became regular performers as children. Even Joie’s
wife, Maria, briefly appeared in the show
in 1949, riding atop a car in a mock chariot
race. Thus, on February 20, 1969, when
Joie Jr.’s own son was born, two things
were certain: He would be known as Joie
III, and he would follow in the footsteps
of his father and grandfather.
“My first memory is driving a little gokart, a Corvette,” Joie III recalls while sitting in his speedway office, where he displays some of the items in his extensive
collection of Chitwood Thrill Show memorabilia. (He carries a 1942 Lucky Teter
medallion in his pocket.) Chitwood looks
younger than 36, with a full head of dark
hair. He and his wife of 11 years, Susan,
have a 5-year-old son, Joel McFadden
(known as “Joie IV”). “I was five years
old, and I would do a 180-degree spin with
the clown-act segment. By the time I was
in high school, I pretty much did everything, like driving cars on two wheels,
wrecking cars in sidewinder crashes, and
doing the Human Battering Ram.”
In the latter stunt, he was mounted on
the hood of a car and went headfirst
through a wall of flaming boards. “Oh,
you felt it, that’s for sure,” Chitwood said.
“It was like somebody smacked you on
the top of your helmet pretty good.” The
crew beat down the fenders to give Joie a
place to grip, and he made sure he kept his
thumbs tucked in lest they be snapped
WE
STAND
BEHIND ‘EM.
SKU# 7207766
Joseph, Missouri. As Chitwood told the
story in Safe at Any Speed: The Joie Chitwood Story, the CSRA press agent, Norm
Witte, wrote a news release about him
without knowing his first name: “He saw
the Lawhon Special with St. Joe, Missouri,
written on it, and needing to get the story
into the evening paper, he wrote down the
name Joe Chitwood. When the story was
typeset at the newspaper, the name came
out ‘Joie.’ ” Chitwood had no idea where
his new name had come from until Witte
introduced himself the next day, but he did
not object. Nor did he protest when Witte,
on seeing Chitwood’s dark complexion,
immediately pronounced him a fullblooded Cherokee Indian and fashioned a
PR scam that persisted for years. His nickname was “the Chief.”
“It was a good publicity stunt, and it
made good reading,” the elder Chitwood
recalled. He didn’t really need the extra
publicity. Joie Sr. was an outstanding racer
who won several sprint-car championships before World War II and raced in
seven Indy 500s, two before the war and
five after, placing fifth three times.
The foundation for Chitwood’s
greatest legacy, his thrill show, was set in
the last show ever presented by the great
Lucky Teter, who pioneered auto stunt
shows with his Hell Drivers thrill show of
the late 1930s. On July 5, 1942, the day
before his scheduled induction into military service, Teter was to give a final benefit performance for the Army Emergency
Relief fund that would culminate with a
record 125-foot car jump. The car misfired
during the run to the jump, and Lucky
came down a few yards short, the driver’s
compartment hitting the receiving ramp.
Lucky Teter’s widow sold the thrill show
to Chitwood in 1943.
Chitwood, who was then 31, had to
figure out how to do all the stunts by himself, since Teter wasn’t around to teach
him. He managed to get the show up and
running during the war, and after the war
pursued a dual career as race-car driver
and thrill-show impresario. When Chitwood retired as a driver in 1950, a fundamental change was occurring in the racing
scene that made it a perfect time for the
auto thrill show.
“What very few people know about
auto racing is that the essence of auto
racing before World War II was at agricultural fairs,” said Chris Economaki, publisher emeritus of National Speed Sport
News and longtime friend of the elder
Chitwood, who died at age 75 in 1988.
“Ninety percent of the touring auto races
were held at fairground racetracks, and in
almost every instance it was the biggest
money-making day that the fairs had. So
racing was a very important facet of the
agricultural-fair business. That prevailed
until the early 1950s, when the concerts
began to come in, as well as events like
For a great selection of
Harley-Davidson®
Footwear visit zappos.com
• Free shipping & return shipping
• 365-day return policy
• Superior customer service
• 110% price protection
See www.zappos.com/cs.zhtml for details.
back and broken by flying boards.
“I don’t remember thinking there was
anything else to do,” he said. “I was either
in school or I was on the road. And when
I was on the road, four nights a week I was
in a town at a fairgrounds. That was pretty
neat, and I enjoyed that. And of course I
knew I was different. I knew not all kids
got to do this.”
In 1984, the television show That’s
Incredible! came to a fair in Harrington,
Delaware, to film an “incredible kids”
episode that included Joie III. “I was going
to stand on the side of a car while my dad
drove on two wheels,” Joie III said. “And
that was the first time. We were going to
do it new just for That’s Incredible!
He’d practiced the stunt enough so that
when it came time to perform in front of
the cameras and the crowd, he pulled it off.
But he will never forget how long it took
to go down the backstretch on two wheels
At its peak in the mid-1950s, the Joie Chitwood Thrill
Show had five different units touring the United States.
A Chitwood stuntman performs a motorcycle
jump at Owatonna, Minnesota, in August 1951.
A Chitwood stuntman performs the Human
Battering Ram stunt during a show in the late
1940s or early 1950s.
168
riding in the passenger seat before he
hoisted himself up through the window
and out onto the side of the car. “I could
hear myself breathing through the helmet,
and my heart was pounding, and I was
thinking, ‘I don’t want to embarrass myself
or the family.’ But I was prepared for the
pressure. I was a showman. That’s what I
did.”
Eventually, Joie III became the general
manager of the show and ultimately realized that it wasn’t his calling. When he left
in 1993, his father didn’t speak to him for
six months, although it was a temporary
schism. The show finally ran out of steam
and ended in 1998 when Chevrolet withdrew its long-running affiliation.
After Chitwood earned his master’s
degree, he sent out two job query letters in
1995. One went to NASCAR chairman
Bill France. The other went to Tony
George. NASCAR sent back a perfunctory
rejection letter. But with George, the name
Chitwood carried weight. The
Engine friction damages cylinder
walls causing power loss, sluggish acceleration and oil burning.
RESTORE is the only product
with the unique CSL formula that
actually fills in and seals microleaks on the cylinder wall to
increase engine compression and
restore engine power. Your vehicle will have better performance
and more balanced compression
across all cylinders.
SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
Cylinders
(1989 Dodge V-6 with 120,903 miles)
www.RestoreUSA.com
Chitwoods were part of Indy tradition.
Joie Sr. had returned every May as an oldtimer and had reveled in the Brickyard’s
heritage and his role in it.
Joie III had grown up knowing his
grandfather as a stuntman and knew little
of his racing career until “the Chief” took
him along to Indy as a teenager. “I was in
high school, and I sat there in the Oldtimers’ Club under the Tower Terrace for
three or four hours, and it was my grandfather and Duke Nalon and Emil Andres
and Cowboy O’Rourke, and these guys
were needling one another like they were
when they were 35 and they were racing.”
Chitwood figured his last name would
get his letter opened at Indy, and then perhaps his credentials would get him a job.
He was correct on both counts. “I very
much remember getting it,” George said.
“I sent it along to Jack Long [executive
director of the newly formed Indy Racing
League] because we had a skeletal crew
at that time. Joie mentioned he had just
earned his MBA, and knowing his
family’s background and history with the
thrill show, and the fact that his grandfather ran here, I just thought he was a good
guy for Jack to look at.”
Chitwood became one of the original
Indy Racing League staff members. His
tryout was helping to organize the IRL’s
inaugural race at Walt Disney World
Speedway. He threw himself into the
work, tackling every sort of job, large and
small, just as he had with the thrill show,
where the cast was also the crew.
In 1999, George sent him to manage
the construction of Chicagoland
Speedway, a joint venture with International Speedway Corporation, where Chitwood worked until becoming the senior
vice-president of business affairs at Indy
in 2002. At Chicagoland, Chitwood
learned hard lessons about the realities of
management. He arrived with orders to
build a speedway and was promptly sidetracked by the responsibilities of operating
the existing drag strip.
“I actually devoted more attention
during the first year to the drag strip than
the big track. They were running, but they
weren’t really set up as a true business, so
I had to really get into that. We were running that drag strip so much I felt like I
was passing myself coming and going to
the track, and all the while we were trying
to get the design done for the big track.”
Chitwood could not have predicted that
he would spend so much of his first year
as president of IMS waging a damagecontrol battle because of the least-profitable event on the speedway’s three-event
calendar. But with F1 under control, he
faces formidable challenges in the near
future.
First on the list is whether to invite
Bernie back in 2006 for another dose of
European racing arrogance. Before failing
to stage a race, Ecclestone had criticized
the speedway’s marketing effort, and
afterward he suggested maybe everything
had worked out for the best. The speedway
could tell this guy to take a hike, or sue
him for the June 19 disgrace. The race
means almost nothing to most American
fans. But Chitwood has uttered no threats
and said nothing to suggest that Formula
1 will not be invited back.
For one thing, there’s that $40 million
investment. More significant, although
Formula 1 may be the least important of
the three races to the American fan, it is
the most important race to the Indianapolis
business community. For downtown
restaurants, the Formula 1 race weekend
is bigger than the Indy 500 weekend.
Europeans spend more and dine late. The
downtown streets were packed on the
night before the nonrace, and the restaurants were serving meals until midnight or
later.
Chitwood also must address the troublesome matter of the Indy 500’s
shrinking fan base. Lost in Danica-mania
this season was the sad fact that despite
her appeal, tens of thousands of grandstand seats remained unsold, and huge
pockets of empty seats existed in the
grandstands outside Turns Two and Three
and the short chutes.
The speedway has embarked on a joint
program with Indiana schools to teach the
history of the speedway in fourth-grade
classrooms and to bring thousands of children to the Brickyard annually on field
trips. “I think our biggest challenge is to
continue to try to understand the changing
needs of the consumer,” he said.
“Everyone is trying to figure out the next
generation of fans, not just of sports but
also entertainment, and who’s going to be
your next customer. I think that’s important for us, and we have a lot of tradition
and heritage that maybe a 12- or 14-yearold who watches racing doesn’t know
yet.”
The underlying message is that Chitwood can’t promise a packed house for
the Indy 500, only that he’ll do the best
job he can with his brain, his experience,
and if necessary, 22 hours a day. “Fred
Nation [vice-president of communications] gave me an article awhile back that
reported all these things that were wrong
with the 500,” Chitwood said. “Then he
showed me that it was from the 1960s.
And I started laughing. I’m not sure any
other sports facility in the world has elevated the name of its community to international recognition like the Indianapolis
500 has done for Indianapolis. It’s something that has been around for so long that
we’re going to get criticized for the things
we do, and the things we don’t do.”
Said George, “Sometimes I feel like a
battering ram, too, so I guess Joie is
■
uniquely qualified for the job.”
NOVEMBER 2005
READER SIGHTINGS
Tony Soprano crossing.
Jory Horner sent this from Waldport, Oregon.
Quick, pass the Beano
to Smokey!
Canadian fire warning
discovered by R. Mead.
Don’t laugh—your daughter’s still inside.
Sean Baertsch came upon hippie van in Portland, Oregon.
Lutzville, Michigan.
Actually, a sign in
Prescott, Arizona, spied by
Christine Maxwell.
CLARIFICATION DEPT.
Ron Scott, the risk manager at Deep South Crane
Rentals in Pensacola, called and politely asked if we’d
mind clearing up something. In this September Reader
Sighting showing a crane that had overturned and
flattened an SUV, Scott felt it only fair that we point out
that the accident was the result of operator error and
did not involve any defect in the crane he rented.
He sent proof, too. (Plus, on the phone it sounded like
the word “lawyer” was not far away.) So, there, now
you know—Ed.
Something wicked this way comes
from Ohio State.
Greg Murphy says this brave Dearbornbased Buckeye is also female.
SPIED:
At GM’s secret test facility in
Saskatoon, work continues
on new SUVs: the Tim
Horton Edition of the Pontiac
Cruller and, at right, the Geo
Trybrid, which runs on gas,
electricity, and White Castle
sliders. Look for them at the
Detroit auto show.
Evan Klippenstein, Edmonton, Alberta.
Car and Driver (ISSN 0008-6002) (USPS 504-790), November 2005, volume 51, issue 5, is
published monthly by Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc., 1633 Broadway, New York, New York
10019. Periodicals postage paid at New York, New York 10001 and at additional mailing offices.
Authorized periodicals postage by the Post Office Department, Ottawa, Canada, and for payment
in cash. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Car and Driver, P.O. Box 52906, Boulder,
Colorado 80322-2906; 850-682-7654; fax 303-604-7644; [email protected].
NOVEMBER 2005
Robert George, South Burlington, Vermont.
Publications Mail Agreement Number 40052054; Canadian
Registration Number 126018209RT; Return undeliverable
Canadian addresses to: 4960-2 Walker Road, Windsor,
Ontario N9A 6J3. E-mail: [email protected].
187

Car and Driver - November 2005

Transcription

Similar documents

WeatherPak - RAE Systems

Hiller / Bell 47 Turbine Helicopter Technical Specifications and

Model Evaluation, Honda 599 vs. Yamaha FZ6

engines - Yamaha

Moto GuzziV-twins - Moto Guzzi 850 Le Mans

RS Series Brochure

Sound pressure level and frequency / tone

Fokker DRI Tri-plane - Airdrome Aeroplanes