Sacramento, California – My review of the 2010 Volkswagen GTI sedan appears in the latest edition of the Northern & Central California Cruisin’ News, published out of Folsom, California, by John Sweeney and Evonne Sotelo.
The “Hot Laps” reviews appear monthly in the publication, along with "Oil Drips," some of my thoughts on the auto industry and auto racing.
To subscribe to the Cruisin’ News, visit http://www.cruisinnews.com, call (916) 933-0949 or send an e-mail request to cruisinnews@mac.com. Mailed requests for information should be sent to Cruisin’ News, P.O. Box 1096, Folsom, CA 95763-1096.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
SHO time: It's a Ford Taurus with lots of extras
This review originally was published in the May edition of the Northern & Central California Cruisin' News published out of Folsom, California -- mg
Sacramento, California -- Finally, MY car of the year.
Yes, I know that Motor Trend magazine’s closely watched 2010 Car of the Year award went to the fuel-sipping Ford Fusion, a politically correct move to be sure and somewhat ironic for a magazine that relentlessly has gas-guzzling, horsepower-laden cars on its cover.
But for me, the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO was the best of the latest new car lot.
Any doubts I had were blown away by the response of neighbors and strangers when I parked my Red Candy Metallic Tinted-colored tester. They’d come running up: “What is that? … Is that an Audi? … Wow, that is one sweet-looking car!”
Told it was a Taurus – albeit one on steroids, with the interior of a Lincoln – they looked at me in disbelief. Believe it, brothers and sisters.
Yeah, it looks good parked. The SHO – that stands for Super High Output, for those who don’t know – rides on 19-inch Goodyear Eagles (20-inch Michelin high-performance tires are an option), wears a stylish decklid spoiler and sports twin chrome exhausts. It has smooth lines and something resembling a hunched shoulders look over the top, like it’s getting ready to throw a punch. And it can deliver a punch.
The power plant is a is a turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 with 365 horses and a top torque rating of 350 foot-pounds coming in at a relatively early 3,500 rpm. Power is delivered smoothly – 75 mph feels like 50 – but you can roast the competition with some more pressure from your right foot.
The tester was decidedly nimble with all-wheel drive. Hard to believe you can have this much fun in a sedan, but hey, there it is.
The opulent, smoky black interior on my ride was comfortable and quiet. Ford isn’t kidding when it said it worked hard to bend noise away from the interior cabin. The steering wheel-mounted shifter paddles were a hoot to handle, and the list of standard features was high-end heavy for a starting price of $37,170.
The tester was significantly dressed up with extras that included heated rear seats, power rear window sunshade, rain-sensing wipers, rearview camera and a voice-activated navigation system. That brought the sticker up to $44,275. OK, so now we’re in Cadillac CTS territory – a nice neighborhood if you can afford to live there.
I guess what I like most about the Taurus SHO is that it’s proof that Ford has gotten its act together. After years of Taurus sales success, the automaker turned it into a jellybean look-alike in 1986 and the ultimately killed it altogether. Ford chief Alan Mulally brought it back, and son of a gun if the current SHO isn’t the best Taurus flagship ever assembled.
Customizers, have at it. This SHO was made to be sculpted and given even more alluring lines. Just don’t mess with that hot-rod engine. And if you do, make sure the horsepower curve heads up, not down.
Yes, I know that Motor Trend magazine’s closely watched 2010 Car of the Year award went to the fuel-sipping Ford Fusion, a politically correct move to be sure and somewhat ironic for a magazine that relentlessly has gas-guzzling, horsepower-laden cars on its cover.
But for me, the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO was the best of the latest new car lot.
Any doubts I had were blown away by the response of neighbors and strangers when I parked my Red Candy Metallic Tinted-colored tester. They’d come running up: “What is that? … Is that an Audi? … Wow, that is one sweet-looking car!”
Told it was a Taurus – albeit one on steroids, with the interior of a Lincoln – they looked at me in disbelief. Believe it, brothers and sisters.
Yeah, it looks good parked. The SHO – that stands for Super High Output, for those who don’t know – rides on 19-inch Goodyear Eagles (20-inch Michelin high-performance tires are an option), wears a stylish decklid spoiler and sports twin chrome exhausts. It has smooth lines and something resembling a hunched shoulders look over the top, like it’s getting ready to throw a punch. And it can deliver a punch.
The power plant is a is a turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 with 365 horses and a top torque rating of 350 foot-pounds coming in at a relatively early 3,500 rpm. Power is delivered smoothly – 75 mph feels like 50 – but you can roast the competition with some more pressure from your right foot.
The tester was decidedly nimble with all-wheel drive. Hard to believe you can have this much fun in a sedan, but hey, there it is.
The opulent, smoky black interior on my ride was comfortable and quiet. Ford isn’t kidding when it said it worked hard to bend noise away from the interior cabin. The steering wheel-mounted shifter paddles were a hoot to handle, and the list of standard features was high-end heavy for a starting price of $37,170.
The tester was significantly dressed up with extras that included heated rear seats, power rear window sunshade, rain-sensing wipers, rearview camera and a voice-activated navigation system. That brought the sticker up to $44,275. OK, so now we’re in Cadillac CTS territory – a nice neighborhood if you can afford to live there.
I guess what I like most about the Taurus SHO is that it’s proof that Ford has gotten its act together. After years of Taurus sales success, the automaker turned it into a jellybean look-alike in 1986 and the ultimately killed it altogether. Ford chief Alan Mulally brought it back, and son of a gun if the current SHO isn’t the best Taurus flagship ever assembled.
Customizers, have at it. This SHO was made to be sculpted and given even more alluring lines. Just don’t mess with that hot-rod engine. And if you do, make sure the horsepower curve heads up, not down.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Dodge Ram's dimensions humble urban dweller
Sacramento, California – I’ve driven enough vehicles over the years to know that I’m not easily intimidated by any one chunk of hardware.
But the 2010 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT Crew Cab 4X4 had me spooked. I felt like an ant looking up at the Empire State Building standing next to the truck … or TRUCK!!! to be more accurate.
How big is it? Let me count the ways.
It’s a rolling Zip code. It makes its own weather. You could carry a Smart fortwo in the cargo bed. I felt like painting “Grave Digger” on its side, a tribute to its monster truck stature.
Dually wheels in the back gave it a particularly ominous appearance, like it might take two airport runways to contain this Ram.
For the record, here are the numbers: 7,639 pounds, 78.3 inches tall, 259.4 inches long, 79.1 inches wide, with a whopper of a wheelbase at 168.9 inches. Payload max a little more than 4,500. GVWR max 12,200.
Niche truck? Yeah, I think so. And the builder, contractor, rancher who wants one needs to put up $46,630 for starters. Some extra goodies on my tester pushed the price to $53,860.
I can understand paying that price is you’re hauling massive amounts of food, gear, feed and the occasional buffalo herd, but this is no urban hauler. Naturally, of course, I had to try it out in my mostly urban environment.
Suffice it to say that I baby-stepped my way around Sacramento at first. Not wanting to knock over mailboxes, parking meters or street cafes, I trudged around town, taking turns too wide and generally creating fear among fellow motorists. Drivers seemed more than willing to get out of my way, I suppose because they didn’t like the idea of being crushed like a beer can under a bulldozer.
Surprisingly, I got comfortable with the heavy duty beast in fairly quick order. On the freeways, I had it up to 70 miles per hour in a hurry. Steering was one-hand easy, although I kept both hands on the wheel most of the time, because the 3500 fills up a lane like Kim Kardashian fills up a little black dress.
The ride was a little bumpier than I thought it should be, given the giant suspension system. The truck rocked a little bit in rhythm on bumpy stretches of road. But generally, high speed runs on clean pavement were surprisingly smooth. The 6.7-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel 6 – 350 horses coming in early at 3,000 rpm – was a stout workhorse. It handled all road conditions well, including brisk accelerations.
Gas mileage? Who knows? The truck exceeds the EPA weight standard. I’m not sure I want to know the numbers.
A long list of standard features was a plus, although the dash was Chrysler-typical plain. Seats were comfortable. Interior room was generous. The center console could house a large dog.
All that said, I was happy to give up the truck at the end of a week. I counted myself fortunate to have not hurt myself or anyone else.
For those who do need such heavy duty equipment and can afford it, you’ve earned my applause. Having lots of rural room to wheel this bad boy around is a good thing.
As for me, I need something a little more compact for my urban-dwelling existence.
But the 2010 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT Crew Cab 4X4 had me spooked. I felt like an ant looking up at the Empire State Building standing next to the truck … or TRUCK!!! to be more accurate.
How big is it? Let me count the ways.
It’s a rolling Zip code. It makes its own weather. You could carry a Smart fortwo in the cargo bed. I felt like painting “Grave Digger” on its side, a tribute to its monster truck stature.
Dually wheels in the back gave it a particularly ominous appearance, like it might take two airport runways to contain this Ram.
For the record, here are the numbers: 7,639 pounds, 78.3 inches tall, 259.4 inches long, 79.1 inches wide, with a whopper of a wheelbase at 168.9 inches. Payload max a little more than 4,500. GVWR max 12,200.
Niche truck? Yeah, I think so. And the builder, contractor, rancher who wants one needs to put up $46,630 for starters. Some extra goodies on my tester pushed the price to $53,860.
I can understand paying that price is you’re hauling massive amounts of food, gear, feed and the occasional buffalo herd, but this is no urban hauler. Naturally, of course, I had to try it out in my mostly urban environment.
Suffice it to say that I baby-stepped my way around Sacramento at first. Not wanting to knock over mailboxes, parking meters or street cafes, I trudged around town, taking turns too wide and generally creating fear among fellow motorists. Drivers seemed more than willing to get out of my way, I suppose because they didn’t like the idea of being crushed like a beer can under a bulldozer.
Surprisingly, I got comfortable with the heavy duty beast in fairly quick order. On the freeways, I had it up to 70 miles per hour in a hurry. Steering was one-hand easy, although I kept both hands on the wheel most of the time, because the 3500 fills up a lane like Kim Kardashian fills up a little black dress.
The ride was a little bumpier than I thought it should be, given the giant suspension system. The truck rocked a little bit in rhythm on bumpy stretches of road. But generally, high speed runs on clean pavement were surprisingly smooth. The 6.7-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel 6 – 350 horses coming in early at 3,000 rpm – was a stout workhorse. It handled all road conditions well, including brisk accelerations.
Gas mileage? Who knows? The truck exceeds the EPA weight standard. I’m not sure I want to know the numbers.
A long list of standard features was a plus, although the dash was Chrysler-typical plain. Seats were comfortable. Interior room was generous. The center console could house a large dog.
All that said, I was happy to give up the truck at the end of a week. I counted myself fortunate to have not hurt myself or anyone else.
For those who do need such heavy duty equipment and can afford it, you’ve earned my applause. Having lots of rural room to wheel this bad boy around is a good thing.
As for me, I need something a little more compact for my urban-dwelling existence.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Indianapolis 500 2010: A tale of two races
Sacramento, California – Watching the last practice, on May 28, before Sunday’s 94th Indianapolis 500, it dawned on me that I had it all wrong.
And after 50 years, you’d think I’d know better. But then again, the best and the brightest in the IZOD IndyCar Series apparently were in the same boat with me.
Indy has always been a tale of two races, both highly publicized.
There’s the race for the pole position, what the bravest of drivers have called the most challenging four laps in motor sports. And then there’s the race itself.
It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of the pole competition … drivers lapping the track at speeds of more than 230 miles per hour, seemingly on the edge of disaster every second. And when a pole winner finally is determined – Helio Castroneves for the fourth time in his career this year, with a sparkling average of nearly 228 mph – it’s easy to assume that car/driver combination is the favorite for the race.
Big mistake.
Pole positions are nice, but 500 miles of excellence tell the tale.
Watching practice last Friday, I watched Target-Chip Ganassi driver Dario Franchitti immediately top the speed chart and stay there. He was lapping at 223, 224, 225 with seemingly no strain whatsoever. Castroneves and the other competitors looked badly overmatched by comparison.
Even more telling, Franchitti was turning quick laps on a hot, humid day. Those are typically tough conditions for making a car stick in the turns, but Franchitti was ripping around the 2.5-mile oval like he was on a rail.
Sure enough, on an even hotter race day on Sunday, Franchitti jumped out front right away and was obviously the class of the field. The dominant car does not always win – ask Dan Wheldon about his 2006 fourth-place Indy finish after dominating all day – but fortune smiled on Franchitti on race day.
It would have been interesting to see if Franchitti would have made it across the line first if the caution had not flown on the last lap. But that’s a moot point. Franchitti was driving the best car, and he was masterful behind the wheel.
Lesson learned: Don’t place your bets based on pole day. The right race day set-up is what counts, and Franchitti’s crew did it right. In golf, they say you drive for show and putt for dough. At Indy, you qualify for show, but you race for the serious dough.
For what it’s worth, I think the last 10 laps of this year’s race were arguably the most sensational in the long, storied history of the 500. It wasn’t just two people battling it out. Five or six drivers were looking to either win or run out of gas trying, and the frightening crash on the last lap only served to make the finish even more of a mind-blower.
Here’s wishing driver Mike Conway well as he spends months recovering from his injuries.
And hats off to Dario and Target-Chip Ganassi for a game plan executed to near perfection.
And after 50 years, you’d think I’d know better. But then again, the best and the brightest in the IZOD IndyCar Series apparently were in the same boat with me.
Indy has always been a tale of two races, both highly publicized.
There’s the race for the pole position, what the bravest of drivers have called the most challenging four laps in motor sports. And then there’s the race itself.
It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of the pole competition … drivers lapping the track at speeds of more than 230 miles per hour, seemingly on the edge of disaster every second. And when a pole winner finally is determined – Helio Castroneves for the fourth time in his career this year, with a sparkling average of nearly 228 mph – it’s easy to assume that car/driver combination is the favorite for the race.
Big mistake.
Pole positions are nice, but 500 miles of excellence tell the tale.
Watching practice last Friday, I watched Target-Chip Ganassi driver Dario Franchitti immediately top the speed chart and stay there. He was lapping at 223, 224, 225 with seemingly no strain whatsoever. Castroneves and the other competitors looked badly overmatched by comparison.
Even more telling, Franchitti was turning quick laps on a hot, humid day. Those are typically tough conditions for making a car stick in the turns, but Franchitti was ripping around the 2.5-mile oval like he was on a rail.
Sure enough, on an even hotter race day on Sunday, Franchitti jumped out front right away and was obviously the class of the field. The dominant car does not always win – ask Dan Wheldon about his 2006 fourth-place Indy finish after dominating all day – but fortune smiled on Franchitti on race day.
It would have been interesting to see if Franchitti would have made it across the line first if the caution had not flown on the last lap. But that’s a moot point. Franchitti was driving the best car, and he was masterful behind the wheel.
Lesson learned: Don’t place your bets based on pole day. The right race day set-up is what counts, and Franchitti’s crew did it right. In golf, they say you drive for show and putt for dough. At Indy, you qualify for show, but you race for the serious dough.
For what it’s worth, I think the last 10 laps of this year’s race were arguably the most sensational in the long, storied history of the 500. It wasn’t just two people battling it out. Five or six drivers were looking to either win or run out of gas trying, and the frightening crash on the last lap only served to make the finish even more of a mind-blower.
Here’s wishing driver Mike Conway well as he spends months recovering from his injuries.
And hats off to Dario and Target-Chip Ganassi for a game plan executed to near perfection.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Helio looks ready for fourth Indy 500 win
Sacramento, California – Is it me or did it seem like 90 percent of the field for this year’s Indianapolis 500 qualified at 224 miles per hour?
There’s certainly a logjam at that number, something that experts point to as making this 94th running of the Greatest Spectacle in Racing a wide-open affair.
I’m not sure I see it that way.
When the three Penske cars – pole-sitter Helio Castroneves, No. 2 starter Will Power and No. 4 starter Ryan Briscoe – were running practice laps in fighter jet-style formation last weekend, I had a vision of it being a preview of the final stages of this Sunday’s race. It very well could go that way.
Three Penske cars, expertly prepared, running up front, for the most successful car owner in Indy car history. Pretty hard to bet against that combination.
The Target-Chip Ganassi duo of 2007 Indy winner Dario Franchitti and 2008 winner Scott Dixon looks formidable enough. They seemed down on oomph compared with the Penske trio, but who knows whether that was gamesmanship leading up to the race?
Maybe Franchitti and Dixon will do better on race day. They started out strong in last year’s race and then faded, clearing the way for Castroneves to breeze to his third 500 win.
My gut tells me that Castroneves is so dialed in that he will win his record-tying fourth Indy 500 this weekend. He loves the track, he knows it by heart, he has the experience and he appears to have the best car. He’s arguably the biggest favorite since Rick Mears started on the pole in 1982, with a qualifying speed far and away better than his rivals.
Those of you who remember 1982, however, might recall that Mears lost by an eye-blink to Gordon Johncock. It’s racing. Anything can happen.
If it’s not Castroneves (pictured), don’t be surprised if Power takes it. He’s a very talented driver who only recently has gained well-deserved respect. Briscoe likely is still hurting from throwing away last year’s IndyCar Series title. He’s good on the fast ovals. He needs to stay mistake-free, however, and he’s shown a tendency to make the big mistake at the worst possible time.
Dark horse? Dan Wheldon, the 2005 winner. He starts in the middle of the pack, and he has a history of charging from that spot to the front on race day. He’s very good at Indy, and he regards the track as holy ground.
Danica Patrick and the other three women in the race have tough starting positions. They have to have a lot go right during the race, but that’s not a longshot. A lot can happen in 500 miles.
All things being equal, though, I’m guessing Castroneves will be drinking the victor’s bottle of milk on Sunday.
There’s certainly a logjam at that number, something that experts point to as making this 94th running of the Greatest Spectacle in Racing a wide-open affair.
I’m not sure I see it that way.
When the three Penske cars – pole-sitter Helio Castroneves, No. 2 starter Will Power and No. 4 starter Ryan Briscoe – were running practice laps in fighter jet-style formation last weekend, I had a vision of it being a preview of the final stages of this Sunday’s race. It very well could go that way.
Three Penske cars, expertly prepared, running up front, for the most successful car owner in Indy car history. Pretty hard to bet against that combination.
The Target-Chip Ganassi duo of 2007 Indy winner Dario Franchitti and 2008 winner Scott Dixon looks formidable enough. They seemed down on oomph compared with the Penske trio, but who knows whether that was gamesmanship leading up to the race?
Maybe Franchitti and Dixon will do better on race day. They started out strong in last year’s race and then faded, clearing the way for Castroneves to breeze to his third 500 win.
My gut tells me that Castroneves is so dialed in that he will win his record-tying fourth Indy 500 this weekend. He loves the track, he knows it by heart, he has the experience and he appears to have the best car. He’s arguably the biggest favorite since Rick Mears started on the pole in 1982, with a qualifying speed far and away better than his rivals.
Those of you who remember 1982, however, might recall that Mears lost by an eye-blink to Gordon Johncock. It’s racing. Anything can happen.
If it’s not Castroneves (pictured), don’t be surprised if Power takes it. He’s a very talented driver who only recently has gained well-deserved respect. Briscoe likely is still hurting from throwing away last year’s IndyCar Series title. He’s good on the fast ovals. He needs to stay mistake-free, however, and he’s shown a tendency to make the big mistake at the worst possible time.
Dark horse? Dan Wheldon, the 2005 winner. He starts in the middle of the pack, and he has a history of charging from that spot to the front on race day. He’s very good at Indy, and he regards the track as holy ground.
Danica Patrick and the other three women in the race have tough starting positions. They have to have a lot go right during the race, but that’s not a longshot. A lot can happen in 500 miles.
All things being equal, though, I’m guessing Castroneves will be drinking the victor’s bottle of milk on Sunday.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Missing the old Indy 500, but race still thrills
Sacramento, California – I’ll head for the Brickyard one more time on May 27, no small thing in my family.
Fresh from World War II and the great naval engagements in the Pacific, my father first attended the Indianapolis 500 in 1946. He passed on his love of the great race to my older brother and myself. For years, we made the 100-mile-or-so journey over to Indianapolis from our home in Dayton, Ohio.
Time and distance have not changed things. On May 30, my brother will sit on that same main stretch where he sat for his first 500 precisely 50 years ago. My first Indy 500 came the next year, 1961. My son will be taking in his 20th race.
And at the risk of sounding ancient, I miss the old days.
I remember when a quarter-million people used to show up for pole day at Indy. You had to fight to get a seat anywhere on the main stretch.
The lure back then was pushing the envelope of speed. The run-up to pole day in 1962 was: My lord, Parnelli Jones could actually break the 150 mph barrier in qualifications!
Fresh from World War II and the great naval engagements in the Pacific, my father first attended the Indianapolis 500 in 1946. He passed on his love of the great race to my older brother and myself. For years, we made the 100-mile-or-so journey over to Indianapolis from our home in Dayton, Ohio.
Time and distance have not changed things. On May 30, my brother will sit on that same main stretch where he sat for his first 500 precisely 50 years ago. My first Indy 500 came the next year, 1961. My son will be taking in his 20th race.
And at the risk of sounding ancient, I miss the old days.
I remember when a quarter-million people used to show up for pole day at Indy. You had to fight to get a seat anywhere on the main stretch.
The lure back then was pushing the envelope of speed. The run-up to pole day in 1962 was: My lord, Parnelli Jones could actually break the 150 mph barrier in qualifications!
He did just that.
By 1968, drivers blasted through 170 mph. In 1973, massive wings on the cars pushed qualifying speeds close to 200. It all seemed impossible, and we showed up in speed-obsessed droves to watch it.
Today, of course, the envelope pushing that used to thrill and terrify us has disappeared. In 1996, the last year of turbocharged engines at Indy, there were some who predicted that driver Arie Luyendyk’s record qualifying lap of 237-plus mph and his four-lap average of 236 and a fraction would stand for 50 years.
Alas, that’s probably true. And for me, there’s sadness in that.
Indy was always about speed and laying it out there beyond what seemed possible. When that went away, something was lost. And it went away during a time when NASCAR was making huge advances in TV viewers and track attendance. Now, the only pushing people want to see appears to be two bellyaching NASCAR drivers shoving each other after the race … or on the caution laps, as recently demonstrated in the Nationwide series.
I’m also disappointed that the powers that be at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) opted to go back to the one qualifying weekend format. I realize that they’re tweaking things to create drama, and it wasn’t much fun having only two drivers qualify back and forth on the once-exciting last day of qualifying – the so-called “bubble day.”
But I miss the feeling of Indy being a month-long racing festival. The IZOD IndyCar Series fraternity is gathered in Indianapolis anyway. Why not keep two weekends of qualifying? Do you have somewhere better to go? And of course, if qualifying is rained out this weekend (a definite possibility, according to my weather map), then you’ll have cars qualifying on weekdays in front of about 250,000 empty seats.
Too bad.
Alas, Indy is still Indy. Incredible facility and steeped in history. But I miss the old days of new speed records and death-defying bravery. No question, racing at Indy today is much safer than it used to be. Some point to keeping the lid on speeds as a primary reason for that.
I’m not sure that’s true. Technology has made racing safer. As for “too fast,” drivers were saying speeds were too fast when 100 mph laps were being turned at IMS in 1920.
Enough longing for the old days. They’ve been running this race for nearly 100 years now. Might as well enjoy it as it is.
By 1968, drivers blasted through 170 mph. In 1973, massive wings on the cars pushed qualifying speeds close to 200. It all seemed impossible, and we showed up in speed-obsessed droves to watch it.
Today, of course, the envelope pushing that used to thrill and terrify us has disappeared. In 1996, the last year of turbocharged engines at Indy, there were some who predicted that driver Arie Luyendyk’s record qualifying lap of 237-plus mph and his four-lap average of 236 and a fraction would stand for 50 years.
Alas, that’s probably true. And for me, there’s sadness in that.
Indy was always about speed and laying it out there beyond what seemed possible. When that went away, something was lost. And it went away during a time when NASCAR was making huge advances in TV viewers and track attendance. Now, the only pushing people want to see appears to be two bellyaching NASCAR drivers shoving each other after the race … or on the caution laps, as recently demonstrated in the Nationwide series.
I’m also disappointed that the powers that be at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) opted to go back to the one qualifying weekend format. I realize that they’re tweaking things to create drama, and it wasn’t much fun having only two drivers qualify back and forth on the once-exciting last day of qualifying – the so-called “bubble day.”
But I miss the feeling of Indy being a month-long racing festival. The IZOD IndyCar Series fraternity is gathered in Indianapolis anyway. Why not keep two weekends of qualifying? Do you have somewhere better to go? And of course, if qualifying is rained out this weekend (a definite possibility, according to my weather map), then you’ll have cars qualifying on weekdays in front of about 250,000 empty seats.
Too bad.
Alas, Indy is still Indy. Incredible facility and steeped in history. But I miss the old days of new speed records and death-defying bravery. No question, racing at Indy today is much safer than it used to be. Some point to keeping the lid on speeds as a primary reason for that.
I’m not sure that’s true. Technology has made racing safer. As for “too fast,” drivers were saying speeds were too fast when 100 mph laps were being turned at IMS in 1920.
Enough longing for the old days. They’ve been running this race for nearly 100 years now. Might as well enjoy it as it is.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Scion xB: Toaster no more, it's a quality ride
Sacramento, California – Remember the newly introduced 2004 Scion xB?
Sure you do. But you might remember it better by its unofficial title: The rolling toaster.
Yes, that’s exactly what it looked like. With silver paint, it looked ready to turn four raft-size slices of bread into crusty brown goodness in a mere minute.
The funky, yet incredibly functional xB is still around, but those hard toaster edges have been softened into more-rounded corners. The look is still boxy, but the 2010 xB is more long, low wagon than saucy beach vehicle taken to land.
It remains one of my favorites. If I had to buy a car tomorrow, I’d probably get an xB.
This came as a shock to my family, which wondered why, after the hundreds of cars I’ve tested over the years, I’d want a $15,000-ish vehicle that looked like the love child of a crossover SUV and a station wagon.
The answer is simple: Affordable, functional, versatile and uncomplicated.
What more can you ask of a vehicle beyond reliable motoring, plentiful space to carry passengers and cargo and enough safety, comfort and convenience features to make one smile? … And don’t forget a sticker that won’t make your heart skip a couple beats.
By the way, the guy who delivered my tester xB confessed to me that the xB was a guilty pleasure … Don’t worry pal, I won’t tell your family.
The tested 2010 Scion xB 5-door with an automatic transmission had a bottom line of $23,538, with a pretty ridiculous package of pricey extras. Frankly, I would have been totally content with all that came with the standard starting price of $16,700.
The starting fare gets you electronic brake-force distribution, vehicle stability control, traction control, air bags all around, locking retractors, tire air pressure-monitoring system, a first-aid kit, halogen headlamps, turn signal indicators in the exterior mirrors, a kickin’ Pioneer sound system, all the iPod/USB connectivity hookups and power door/locks/windows.
Impressed? You should be.
On the roll, the xB’s 16-valve, 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine does its share of heavy lifting with 158 horsepower. Yes, it will scream at the top of a steep hill, but what do you want with 158 ponies? Gas mileage is 22 miles per gallon in the city and 28 mpg on the highway.
A sport-tuned MacPherson strut suspension on the front and torsion beam in the rear team for a surprisingly smooth, sedan-like ride. Nice work there.
Five passengers have room enough, but the vehicle is an absolutely roomy dream for a family of four. Long trips can be done in comfort. Some quick work with the 60/40 split, fold-flat rear seats turn the xB into a package hauler capable of handling what most of us carry from time to time.
What else? Oh, you might be able to steal a 2010 model from your Scion dealer because the redesigned-for-2011 xB recently rolled into dealerships.
The 2011 xB gets fresh styling inside and out, and pricing has been set at $16,000 with a manual gearbox and $16,950 for those who dislike a clutch.
How do you like your toast? Same way I feel about the xB: Well done.
Sure you do. But you might remember it better by its unofficial title: The rolling toaster.
Yes, that’s exactly what it looked like. With silver paint, it looked ready to turn four raft-size slices of bread into crusty brown goodness in a mere minute.
The funky, yet incredibly functional xB is still around, but those hard toaster edges have been softened into more-rounded corners. The look is still boxy, but the 2010 xB is more long, low wagon than saucy beach vehicle taken to land.
It remains one of my favorites. If I had to buy a car tomorrow, I’d probably get an xB.
This came as a shock to my family, which wondered why, after the hundreds of cars I’ve tested over the years, I’d want a $15,000-ish vehicle that looked like the love child of a crossover SUV and a station wagon.
The answer is simple: Affordable, functional, versatile and uncomplicated.
What more can you ask of a vehicle beyond reliable motoring, plentiful space to carry passengers and cargo and enough safety, comfort and convenience features to make one smile? … And don’t forget a sticker that won’t make your heart skip a couple beats.
By the way, the guy who delivered my tester xB confessed to me that the xB was a guilty pleasure … Don’t worry pal, I won’t tell your family.
The tested 2010 Scion xB 5-door with an automatic transmission had a bottom line of $23,538, with a pretty ridiculous package of pricey extras. Frankly, I would have been totally content with all that came with the standard starting price of $16,700.
The starting fare gets you electronic brake-force distribution, vehicle stability control, traction control, air bags all around, locking retractors, tire air pressure-monitoring system, a first-aid kit, halogen headlamps, turn signal indicators in the exterior mirrors, a kickin’ Pioneer sound system, all the iPod/USB connectivity hookups and power door/locks/windows.
Impressed? You should be.
On the roll, the xB’s 16-valve, 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine does its share of heavy lifting with 158 horsepower. Yes, it will scream at the top of a steep hill, but what do you want with 158 ponies? Gas mileage is 22 miles per gallon in the city and 28 mpg on the highway.
A sport-tuned MacPherson strut suspension on the front and torsion beam in the rear team for a surprisingly smooth, sedan-like ride. Nice work there.
Five passengers have room enough, but the vehicle is an absolutely roomy dream for a family of four. Long trips can be done in comfort. Some quick work with the 60/40 split, fold-flat rear seats turn the xB into a package hauler capable of handling what most of us carry from time to time.
What else? Oh, you might be able to steal a 2010 model from your Scion dealer because the redesigned-for-2011 xB recently rolled into dealerships.
The 2011 xB gets fresh styling inside and out, and pricing has been set at $16,000 with a manual gearbox and $16,950 for those who dislike a clutch.
How do you like your toast? Same way I feel about the xB: Well done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)