Acronyms
If fun means converting your clunker Mercedes diesel to burn french-fry oil or eking out that extra mpg in your Prius, good on you, sirs. Fun around here still feels like acceleration, be it longitudinal or lateral.
Green vehicles and performance are not mutually exclusive, however: Means of propelling vehicles sans spark plugs hold tremendous go-fast potential. Electric motors produce 100 percent of their torque at 0 rpm, which means instant throttle response, and they can produce acceleration from a standstill to challenge any internal-combustion engine. One new electric vehicle, the Tesla roadster, demonstrates this attribute with a claimed four-second 0-to-60-mph time. Nothing is emissions free, as the chances are that if you live in the U.S., coal was burned to produce the Tesla’s juice, but this argument will carry less weight if more renewable energy sources are rolled into the grid.
Diesels share electric motors’ penchant for torque production, especially when turbocharged. In places like Italy, where gasoline costs more than $6 a gallon, over 90 percent of Mercedes and BMWs sold have turbo-diesel engines. Although the American populace quivers with memories of the awful, weak, stinky diesel VWs, Mercedes, and GMs foisted on us in the ’80s, the reality is that diesels have been powering the rest of the world in economical, environmentally responsible, and dare we say sporty form for more than a decade since.
Diesel performance is no oxymoron—a diesel-powered streamliner recently went 350 mph, and a diesel dragster has covered the quarter-mile in less than 8 seconds. A Ferrari Enzo, by comparison, requires 11. The BMW 535d (d is for diesel) makes 268 horsepower and 413 lb-ft of torque, streaks to 60 about six seconds, and will hopefully be available in the U.S. in 2008, once BMW starts selling diesels here.
The massive diesel clouds of yesteryear have been swept clean with better diesel fuel and hosts of new technologies. And diesels just consume less than their gasoline counterparts: The most fuel-efficient combustion-engine vehicles for sale (but not in the U.S., of course) are all diesels, including the Lilliputian Smart Fortwo cdi and Fiat Punto JTD, which each dish out more than 60 mpg.
Eight of the 10 cars on this list use good ol’ gasoline. Most are fuel efficient by virtue of being small and light, but many also use cutting-edge engine technologies, such as variable cam timing, that help with efficiency and power production. Given the number of performance-oriented hybrids and diesels in the pipeline, gasoline-powered cars might be in the minority if we were to rewrite this list in 10 years. For now, you’ll just have to settle for being a green enough enthusiast.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/06q4/fun_and_efficient_cars_-feature
Perhaps you’ve noticed the absence of a minivan entry in our annual caterwaul. That’s because—no surprise here—the everyday people mover is not exactly an enthusiast-mobile. Nonetheless,
Car and Driver has always been a fan of group-friendly rides, and for hauling seven people and their stuff, nothing makes more sense. As then editor-in-chief William Jeanes pointed out in his elegant way in a 30,000-mile test of the second-generation Dodge Caravan in 1992, “People have a way of expecting editors of car magazines to say that their favorite cars are something fast and exotic. May I offer some news? I like the looks, the utility, and the drivability of this vehicle.”
How much do we like minivans? We have undertaken no fewer than 12 long-term tests of these breadboxes in the last 20 years. The van you see before you, a
, is no newcomer to these pages. This fifth-generation Chrysler product was indeed the sentimental favorite in our last comparison test of “genuine” minivans [
November 2007]. The chief scrutinizer in that test, the eagle-eyed Patrick Bedard, asked out loud, “Can the original maker regain the lead in the category it invented 24 years ago?” Well, no, it couldn’t, winding up midpack, behind the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna but ahead of the Nissan Quest and Hyundai Entourage.
But a minivan of any kind had been absent from our long-term fleet for more than four years. In early 2008, Dodge was amenable when we inquired if it would be okay to beat one up for 40,000 miles. Maybe the family types around here would find more to like than did the staffers in that comparo. Or maybe not.
To our order list for the silver Grand Caravan SXT, we tacked on about $9000 worth of options. When we took delivery that March, we’d jettisoned the stock 3.8-liter engine for the stronger 4.0-liter version and added a sport suspension ($630) and a $600 tow-prep package. Then there was the $3785 Customer Preferred package to keep us safe and cozy; it included a rear backup camera, heated front- and second-row seats, and the much admired remote engine starter. So we could play our
High School Musical DVDs at will, we checked the box for the $1525 dual-screen rear entertainment system. The $495 Swivel ’n Go package brought with it a stowable table, an add-on we might have skipped had there not been the included “swivel” feature for the second-row seating. All this (and more) had the effect of swelling the $27,770 entry price to $36,825.
Coincidence? The van has a stowable table, and Chrysler has a 25th anniversary.
Party! But, wait, someone is sitting on Quiroga’s chewing gum!
The Grand Caravan was a steady performer whether on daily commutes or extended trips, although its flaccid responses and low limits—even among minivans—were routinely criticized. There were complaints about a slow-to-respond throttle—and when it did come on, it did so with too much sudden thrust in low and mid gears. An editor pointed it out in the logbook as “another example of Chrysler engine calibration to create greater sensation of power.” But once the engine got into the upper reaches, the van kept up easily on fast-flowing interstates. Indeed, acceleration is one of the Caravan’s strong suits, with a 7.8-second 0-to-60-mph time (0.2 second better than in the ’07 comparo), second only in its class to the Sienna.
The heated seats, quick to warm up, were a godsend in the worst winter many of us had encountered in Michigan—the big snow of 2008–09. But the comfort report from the driver’s seat was not very good: One editor didn’t like the seat, calling it mediocre and finding it hard to be comfortable in; another said the seat’s bottom became “inadequate” over long trips.
Filled to its 32-cubic-foot cargo-carrying capacity (behind the third row) and bearing two rooftop carriers and one hitch-mounted cargo tray, the Grand Caravan proved dependable for a family of six that headed out west. “Heavy gear hunting through the Sierra Nevada Mountains is forgivable, given the way this van is loaded down,” website associate editor Jared Gall noted. Double glove box, center console, cubbies in the doors. “Storage paradise,” noted Gall’s mom. “Just when I thought I had squeezed in everything possible, we discovered the roomy storage areas in the floor.” But from this family adventure, we learned that big people—all the Galls need are kilts to look like entrants in a tree-throwing contest—have a difficult time getting into the second-row seats, and comfort went out the window to those exiled to the Dodge’s smallest-in-class third row, where the seatbacks aren’t high enough. And with a full house, floor space is tight for big feet.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2008_dodge_grand_caravan_sxt-long-term_road_test