8wo20w by Thomas Swift

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

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

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?

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. ■ www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 (editors@CARandDRIVER.com). 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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 &

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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.

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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.

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

▲

300

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. www.castrol.com/syntec. www.castrol.com/syntec. Check out SYNTEC’s superior performan www.castrol.com/syntec. *

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

NOVEMBER 2005

urns out African killer T bees aren’t as deadly as those over-excitable

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . 261 cu in, 4280cc Power (SAE net) . . . . . 380 bhp @ 7000 rpm 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 Projected fuel economy (C/D est): EPA city driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 mpg EPA highway driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 mpg www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Performance ratings (C/D est): Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3–10.5 sec Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6–18.8 sec Projected fuel economy (C/D est): EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10–15 mpg EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . 13–19 mpg 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

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 Torque (SAE net) . . . . . 148 lb-ft @ 3500 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 Performance ratings (C/D est): Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5–10.0 sec Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8–18.2 sec Projected fuel economy (mfr’s est): EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–22 mpg EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . 26–27 mpg

$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 Length/width/height . . . . . . 219.9/71.9/68.6 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4350–4950 lb Performance ratings (C/D est): Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6–9.5 sec Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8–17.7 sec Projected fuel economy (mfr’s est): EPA city driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–17 mpg EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . 19–22 mpg

HIGH-SPEED PREVIEW BUGATTI VEYRON 16.4

The fastest and most expensive production car ever. BY CSABA CSERE PHOTOGRAPHY BY ACHIM HARTMANN

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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 www.CARandDRIVER.com 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 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . 488 cu in, 7998cc Power (SAE net) . . . . . 1001 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . 922 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . 7-speed manual with automated shifting and clutch Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.3 in Length/width/height . . . . . . 175.8/78.7/47.5 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4300 lb Performance ratings (C/D est): 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 Projected fuel economy (C/D est): 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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

PREVIEW TEST PORSCHE CAYMAN S

Europe on 291 horsepower a day. BY AARON ROBINSON PHOTOGRAPHY BY JEFFREY G. RUSSELL

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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 Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 sec @ 117 mph Top speed (drag limited, mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . 190 mph BRAKING 70–0 mph @ impending lockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 ft 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 INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 dBA Full-throttle acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 dBA 70-mph cruising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 dBA *Test car would not accelerate from 30 mph in 6th gear. 76

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 cu in, 8277cc Compression ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6:1 Fuel-delivery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . port injection Valve gear . . . . pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters Power (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6000 rpm DRIVETRAIN Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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 Track, front/rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.6/60.9 in Length/width/height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.6/75.2/48.6 in Ground clearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 in Drag area, Cd (0.39) x frontal area (19.3 sq ft) . . . . . . . 7.5 sq ft Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3400 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.2/51.8% Curb weight per horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 lb Fuel capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 gal 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 Turns lock-to-lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Turning circle curb-to-curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.5 ft BRAKES Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hydraulic with vacuum power assist and 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) Test inflation pressures, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29/29 psi 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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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.

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 sec @ 93 mph Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 mph

MERCEDES-BENZ R500

Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 6-passenger, 5-door wagon Price as tested: $71,030 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 Bore x stroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.82 x 3.31 in, 97.0 x 84.0mm Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 cu in, 4966cc Compression ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0:1 Fuel-delivery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . port injection Valve gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . chain-driven single overhead cams, 3 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters Power (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm Redline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6400 rpm

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (mfr’s est) EPA city driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 mpg EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 mpg C/D-observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 mpg INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 dBA Full-throttle acceleration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 dBA 70-mph cruising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 dBA

DRIVETRAIN Transmission . . . . . 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting Final-drive ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.70:1 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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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

full-throttle

70-mph cruise

EPA city

EPA highway

C/D 900-mile trip

*This ratio is only used during kickdowns from higher gears. Best in test. 94

2.6

rolling 5–60 mph

top speed, mph

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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 www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY

100

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 as tested: $45,055 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 Bore x stroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.66 x 3.39 in, 92.9 x 86.0mm Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 cu in, 3498cc Compression ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7:1 Fuel-delivery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . port injection Valve gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . chain-driven double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing Power (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 bhp @ 6000 rpm 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

*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 70–0 mph @ impending lockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 ft 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 INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL Idle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 dBA Full-throttle acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 dBA 70-mph cruising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 dBA

www.CARandDRIVER.com

BRAKING 70–0 mph, feet BMW 330i Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport Cadillac CTS

130

140

150

160

170

180

ROADHOLDING 300-foot skidpad, g Lexus IS350 Cadillac CTS Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

BMW 330i Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport Lexus IS350 Cadillac CTS

STEERING Type . . . . . rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist Steering ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5:1 Turns lock-to-lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Turning circle curb-to-curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 ft BRAKES Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hydraulic with vacuum power assist and 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

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 Track, front/rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.8/57.6 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178.2/68.0/56.3 in Ground clearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 in Drag area, Cd (0.27) x frontal area (22.5 sq ft) . . . . . . . 6.1 sq ft Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3515 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.1/45.9% Curb weight per horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 lb Fuel capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 gal CHASSIS/BODY Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unit construction Body material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . welded steel stampings

Lexus IS350

0 104

DRIVETRAIN Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual Final-drive ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82:1 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)

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 Test inflation pressures, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28/32 psi 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.

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

$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 www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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 Length/width/height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168.1/66.9/56.3 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2799 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4/37.6% *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 Road course: 52.6 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 627 feet 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

Street drivability: ★★★ 1/4-mile: 13.9 sec @ 104 mph Road course: 51.5 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 555 feet Total course time: 117.5 sec 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-

Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3door coupe Price as tested: $39,184 (base price: $35,184) Engine type: supercharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $9360 suspension: $1886 brakes: $2115 wheels/tires: $1988 body/interior: $4000 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 cu in, 2354cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 bhp @ 7500 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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 Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.7/66.7/56.7 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2800 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3/39.7% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options. NOVEMBER 2005

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 3door coupe Price as tested: $53,199 (base price: $46,944) Engine type: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $15,850 suspension: $4660 brakes: $3055 wheels/tires: $3544 body/interior: $6255 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 cu in, 2354cc Power (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 bhp @ 7800 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 lb-ft @ 6400 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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 Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.7/66.7/56.7 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2657 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.2/39.8% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

FRONT-WHEEL DRIVE 2003 Mini-Madness Mini Cooper S Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 101 mph Road course: 51.2 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 568 feet Total course time: 117.2 sec

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 Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 3door coupe Price as tested: $50,756 (base price: $44,487) Engine type: supercharged and intercooled SOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $13,624 suspension: $3896 brakes: $2818 wheels/tires: $3199 body/interior: $6269 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 cu in, 1598cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 bhp @ 7200 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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 Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.9/66.5/55.8 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2634 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.8/38.2% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

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 Road course: 52.5 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 560 feet Total course time: 113.0 sec 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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 3door coupe Price as tested: $59,724 (base price: $49,625) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $17,267 suspension: $2789 brakes: $4674 wheels/tires: $2410 body/interior: $12,749 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 cu in, 1998cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 bhp @ 7500 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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 Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.7/56.7/66.7 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2525 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5/36.5% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

NOVEMBER 2005

1st Place

2004 Howell Automotive Dodge SRT4

Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 112 mph Road course: 52.0 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 750 feet Total course time: 112.3 sec 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 Price as tested: $43,153 (base price: $40,499) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $15,404 suspension: $1465 brakes: $719 wheels/tires: $1716 body/interior: $2654 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 cu in, 2429cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 bhp @ 5500 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads . . . . . F: Wilwood PolyMatrix Q compound, R: stock Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.0 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.4/67.4/56.0 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2934 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5/37.5% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

www.CARandDRIVER.com

121

SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE

FRONT-WHEEL-DRIVE RESULTS

124

www.CARandDRIVER.com

NOVEMBER 2005

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE 8th Place

1997 Converse Engineering Toyota Tacoma Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 14.4 sec @ 98 mph Road course: 57.7 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: DNF Total course time: 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 Price as tested: $26,308 (base price: $25,868) Engine type: turbocharged DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $15,300 suspension: $4853 brakes: $520 wheels/tires: $1020 body/interior: $440 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 cu in, 2694cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EBC 6000 Series Greenstuff Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in Length/width/height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.5/66.5/61.8 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2823 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0/46.0% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options. 126

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Street drivability: ★★★★★ 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 102 mph Road course: 51.3 sec 130-to-0-mph braking: 482 feet Total course time: DNF

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

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Price as tested: $52,670 (base price: $52,670) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 20-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $12,342 suspension: $4465 brakes: $4070 wheels/tires: $2923 body/interior: stock Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 cu in, 1781cc Power (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 bhp @ 6100 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SBS Pro Track Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.3 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179.0/69.5/56.2 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3581 lb Weight distribution, F/R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.7/42.3% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

6th Place

2004 Flyin’ Miata FM Speed Mazdaspeed MX-5 Miata Street drivability: ★★★★★ 1/4-mile: 13.1 sec @ 112 mph Road course: 51.0 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 608 feet Total course time: 113.4 sec

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 www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

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 Price as tested: $49,752 (base price: $49,662) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $17,210 suspension: $2349 brakes: $1607 wheels/tires: $2156 body/interior: $90 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 cu in, 1996cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 bhp @ 6300 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Performance Friction PFC97, R: Carbotech Panther XP8 Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 in Length/width/height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.7/66.1/48.0 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2451 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.6/46.4% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options. 128

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 13.5 sec @ 106 mph Road course: 49.1 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 615 feet Total course time: 112.4 sec

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.

Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Price as tested: $91,915 (base price: $83,647) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $30,704 suspension: $14,750 brakes: $2856 wheels/tires: $2317 body/interior: $8268 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 cu in, 2457cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 bhp @ 7000 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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; stock 2-piston calipers Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Pagid Orange, R: AXXIS Ultimate Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.8/68.5/56.3 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3309 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.2/40.8% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options. NOVEMBER 2005

2004 Buschur Racing Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 12.0 sec @ 116 mph Road course: 49.8 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 692 feet Total course time: 109.8 sec

SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

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 Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Price as tested: $52,084 (base price: $51,984) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $12,555 suspension: $5200 brakes: $2335 wheels/tires: $2800 body/interior: $100 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 cu in, 1999cc Power (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 bhp @ 5700 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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; stock 2-piston calipers Brake pads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Pagid Orange, R: AXXIS Ultimate Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178.5/69.7/57.1 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2971 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.7/39.3% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

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 Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 11.9 sec @ 121 mph Road course: 51.6 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 525 feet Total course time: 107.6 sec

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

Vehicle type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa Price as tested: $95,183 (base price: $86,023) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $29,978 suspension: $2800 brakes: $5290 wheels/tires: $2620 body/interior: $9160 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 cu in, 1796cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 bhp @ 8000 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual 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; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferodo Racing Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149.0/67.7/43.9 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0/61.0% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

131

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

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

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

2nd Place

2005 Hondata/Prototype Racing Lotus Elise Street drivability: ★★★★ 1/4-mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mph Road course: 48.7 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 594 feet Total course time: 105.9 sec

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

132

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Vehicle type: mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa Price as tested: $72,654 (base price: $71,804) Engine type: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $20,840 suspension: $6270 brakes: stock wheels/tires: $834 body/interior: $850 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 cu in, 1998cc Power (mfr’s claim). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 bhp @ 8500 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 lb-ft @ 7200 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual Front brakes . . . . . stock 11.3 x 1.0-in vented, cross-drilled discs; stock 2-piston calipers Rear brakes . . . . . stock 11.3 x 1.0-in vented, cross-drilled discs; stock 1-piston calipers Brake pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stock Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149.0/67.7/43.9 in Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6/61.4% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

NOVEMBER 2005

SUPERFOUR CHALLENGE

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE RESULTS

NOVEMBER 2005

www.CARandDRIVER.com

133

REAR- OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE

1st Place

2005 HKS USA Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution RS Street drivability: ★★★ 1/4-mile: 11.8 sec @ 116 mph Road course: 48.3 sec 140-to-0-mph braking: 567 feet Total course time: 102.9 sec

HKS Evo had all the makings we expected of Evo: $35,464 in powertrain Tmods,hea worldbeating including a more efficient turbo that pumps

Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Price as tested: $86,788 (base price: $79,476) Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection MODS engine/transmission: $35,464 suspension: $4030 brakes: $6640 wheels/tires: $3808 body/interior: $7852 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 cu in, 2283cc Power (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 bhp @ 6600 rpm Torque (mfr’s claim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual 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 Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178.5/69.7/57.1 in Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3125 lb Weight distribution, F/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2/38.8% *Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

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.

148

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Price as tested: $21,494 (base price: $19,994) Engine type: SOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 cu in, 2378cc Power (SAE net) . . . . . . 162 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . 162 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-speed manual Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.4 in Length/width/height . . . . . . 179.7/72.2/53.5 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 Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . 16.2 sec @ 85 mph Top speed (drag limited). . . . . . . . . . 132 mph Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . 0.82 g 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

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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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-

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 5-door wagon Price as tested: $60,645 (base price: $50,830) Engine type: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 cu in, 4565cc Power (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 bhp @ 6400 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm Transmission . . . . . 5-speed automatic with manumatic shifting Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.4 in Length/width/height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195.0/72.6/67.8 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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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 PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY

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

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.

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 Price as tested: $33,190 (base price: $30,995) Engine type: DOHC 24-valve inline-6, magnesium-and-aluminum block and aluminum head, port fuel injection Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . 183 cu in, 2996cc Power (SAE net) . . . . . . 215 bhp @ 6250 rpm Torque (SAE net) . . . . . 185 lb-ft @ 2750 rpm Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-speed manual Wheelbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108.7 in Length/width/height . . . . . . 178.2/71.5/55.9 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 Standing 1/4 -mile . . . . . . . 14.7 sec @ 94 mph Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . 147 mph Braking, 70–0 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad . . . . . . 0.87 g 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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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. www.CARandDRIVER.com

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

www.CARandDRIVER.com

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; caranddriver@neodata.com. 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: caranddriver@neodata.com. www.CARandDRIVER.com

187