Import car of the year 1985. (evaluation)
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1985 EMAP-USA
Let's run this by you one more time. First of all, each car in this field is judged against all the other cars in its CLASS. For instance, the Spectrum is judged against the GLC, Escort, Civic etc.; the MR2 against the Fiero, X1/9, etc. The first guy who sends a letter asking us how we can possibly compare a Sprint to a Merkur gets to spend a week in Miami with Richard Simmons.
The testing goes like this. The first day is spent in performance testing. This includes acceleration runs from 0-30 mph, 0-60 mph, quarter-mile ETs, and terminal velocity. Other performance tests include braking from 60 mph to 0, runs through the 600-ft slalom, laps around the 200-ft-diameter skidpad, and finally a fuel economy test over our 150-mile fuel loop. The winner in any performance test gets 100% with the others below that calculated as a percentage of the winner's score.
All the performance testing accounts for one-third of the total score each car gets. The remaining two-thirds of the score comes from our subjective evaluations. We take each car over a loop that includes urban and suburban driving, a stretch of freeway, and a lengthy drive through the San Gabriel Mountains. The cars are judged on the basis of Styling and Design, Quality Control, Occupant Comfort and Convenience, Ride and Drive, Chassis Dynamics, and Dollar Value. Each test booklet has a list of all the cars in the test plus all cars in the class against which that car is competing. Now we've got that squared away, let's carry on with the introductions.
THE PLAYERS
The contestants in this year's competition cover virtually every market segment known to man. Starting at the bottom of the price pyramid, we have the Chevy Sprint, the automotive equivalent of generic consumer goods. The Sprint says "car" in so many words and doesn't care to embellish the point. Starting at $5151, this is Chevy's, and the General's, entry-level car. Built by Suzuki in Japan (yes, that one), the Sprint comes in as the least expensive, smallest displacement (993 cc), and among the highest EPA-rated fuel misers (53 city/68 highway) on the road. The 3-cylinder powerplant makes a respectable (for its size) 48 hp and 57 lb-ft of torque. Drive is through the front wheels by way of a 5-speed manual transaxle. The top two gears are both overdrive, but the 4.10:1 axle ratio coupled to the fairly torquey engine yields suprisingly lively performance in around-town driving. Not surprising, really, since it only weighs 1488 lb. Meeting the road is a set of P145/80R12 BF Goodrich Radial Steel Belteds.
Just a notch up from the Sprint is the Chevy Spectrum. You'd like to call the Spectrum and Sprint import fighters, but since they're both imports, you'd have to call them some sort of import turncoats. What they do is divert some of the profit that would ordinarily have gone to Japan to General Motors instead. Like its stablemate, the Sprint, the Spectrum is aimed at the first-time new-car buyer or the second or third-car market, a job that the Chevette and Pontiac T-1000 have been performing faithfully for what seems like eons.
The Spectrum is built in Japan by Isuzu Motors Limited, a long-time GM partner in that part of the world. It comes standard with an overhead cam 1471cc 4-cylinder engine, carbureted and normally aspirated, that delivers 70 hp and 87 lb-ft of torque.
The next jump up the price ladder is the Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo. The Mirage brings some real performance to a market level where, historically, performance was only a slogan. Just for the record, Chrysler sells its own version of the Mirage. They still call it the Colt and they market not only the 2-door hatch version, but also a 4-door hatch and a 4-door notchback, which they call the Colt Premier Turbo. We chose the Mirage as our candidate because Mitsubishi, after all, builds the cars.
The Mirage Turbo is aimed at the rapidly escalating mini-sport market and is the evolutionary descendant of the discontinued Colt Turbo. Other than the 102-hp fuel-injected, turbo-charged Colt 1.6-liter 4-banger, the Mirage is a completely different animal. The body has been stretched in every conceivable direction in order to increase interior volume. The cabin is not only roomier than the Colt's, but all the interior appointments have been refined and upgraded. Conceptually, the Mirage is more upmarket than the Colt and doesn't quite deserve the econosport designation a car in this class might have had a few years ago. Although it's priced at $7689 for the base Turbo, there's nothing "econo" (in the strict sense of the word) about the base content or its performance.
To round out the performance envelope, Mitsu installs P185/60R14 Yokohama A008 tires on the turbo versions of the Mirage. These unique tires have an asymmetric tread design whereby the inside half of the tire has conventional-looking tread while the outside half, which enjoys the most intimate contact with the road during cornering, is virtually a slick surface. This translates into roadholding capabilities far beyond those of most tires showing up as OEM on cars in this class.
Volkswagen hasn't had an all-new car in a long time. This year the kids from Wolfsburg seem to be making up for it. Last month the GTI took the overall win in our Domestic Car of the Year competition. For the Import competition, VW's offering is the Jesta GLI, Close kin in more ways than parentage, although the GTI is built in this country.
Coming fast on the introduction of the new Golf and GTI, the Jetta GLI offers everything the GTI does, plus four doors and lots of interior and trunk room. The GLI uses the GTI chassis as its starting point and offers the same uprated (from the Golf) suspension pieces, P185/60HR14 Pirelli P6 tires (the GTI uses Goodyear Eagles), and 4-wheel disc brakes. Powering the GLI is the same spirited 100-hp, 1.8-liter port-injected overhead cam 4-cylinder engine found in the GTI. And that motor spins the same transaxle and the same ratios as the GTI.
In last year's Import competition, Toyota's entries were the Camry, Corolla and Van, and they finished well down in the 13-car field. This year, the odds going in were that the MR2, the middie 2-seater, would probably do a lot better than its stablemates. It did, by a margin.
As part of Toyota's master plan for world domination, the MR2 launches the firm into an all-new market segment, that of the affordable 2-seater sorts car. The MR2 incorporates some of the most marketable buzzwords of the decade: mid-engine, dual overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, fuel injection, 4-wheel disc brakes, and an amphetamine-rush 7500 rpm redline. The most intriguing part of this package is the manufacturer's asking price--$11,000 to $12,000. Mechanically, the MR2 uses the Corolla GTS' engine and some of its front suspension components at the rear. Designated the 4A-GE, the 16-valve motor makes 112 hp at 6600 rpm and 97 lb-ft of torque at a fairly high 4800 rpm. This is connected to an excellent 5-speed manual transmission stirred by one of the better shift linkages around.
Nissan has two entries in this year's contest--the all-new 200SX Turbo and the new Maxima SE. Like its bigger brother, the Maxima, the 200SX has undergone a complete redo. For starters, the overall length was decreased slightly but the wheel-base and track have been increased. This translates into more interior volume, better handling, and improved ride motions. The Turbo version of the 200SX gets a fully independent semi-trailing arm rear suspension, virtually a knockoff of the 300ZX, while the normally aspirated version gets a live rear axle with coil springs. Disc brakes are located at each corner, and the car runs on 195/60HR15 Yokohama 352A steel-belted radials. In addition to the suspension, the new car also gets a big boost in performance in the form of a turbo-charged 120-hp 1.8-liter 4-cylinder engine.
The very successful Maxima line this year got a complete overhaul. Nissan scrapped everything in the old car and started with a clean sheet of paper. For starters, the driving wheels were swapped from rear to front. The old inline 6-cylinder from the discontinued 280ZX was replaced by the new V-6 from the 300ZX. In the Maxima, the engine is turned transversely and sits forward of the wheel centerline.
This excellent new V-6 displaces 2960 cc and in the Maxima produces 152 hp. The same engine in the 300ZX makes 160 hp, the difference being in the intake and exhaust plumbing changes necessitated by the transverse arrangement.
Subaru at long last breaks some new ground, relatively speaking, and ventures forth into whole new styling and image territories. The Coupe looks unlike any Subaru that has gone before, inside and out, but retains that certain quirkiness and off-beat personality that have endeared Subes to hosts of loyal fans.
Subaru enters this year's contest with an all-new turbocharged 4-wheel-drive vehicle. The newest Sube is equipped with a 1781cc overhead cam, turbocharged, port-injected, 4-cylinder boxer motor that delivers 111 hp and 134 lb-ft of torque. Subaru has opted to retain the boxer layout in order to keep the engine mass low and also allow for a sloping hood profile. In addition to the new engine, the car also features an air spring suspension system. It's controlled by a small microprocessor and lowers or raises ride height either automatically or on driver command. In a clean departure with the past, Subaru has finally abandoned the '50s styling of their previous models and ventured forth with future-look. The sharply sloped nose, crisp lines, and clean, ungilded flanks may not quite be in the same league as the Audi 5000, but you can't call it ugly anymore. The interior is also vastly improved with much better seats, a gee-whiz digital display, and some clever, if bizarre, styling touches. The car rides around on P185/70HR13 Bridgestone SF 237 doughnuts.
The other Mitsubishi in this contest, the Galant, is Mitsu's upwardly mobile 4-door luxury family sedan. Along with its baby brother, the Mirage, the car is an all-new product for 1985 and one that moves Mitsubishi further upmarket than it's ever been before. The Galant is Mitsu's competition for such cars as the Cressida, Camry, and Maxima. This 4-door flagship of the Mitsu line comes equipped with a normally aspirated 2350cc fuel-injected four-banger that produces a modest 101 hp. The only available transmission for this car is a 4-speed automatic overdrive unit equipped with a limited-slip torque converter that can lock up at speeds as low as 12 mph.
The optional ECS (Electronic Control Suspension) system is Mitsu's answer to this market's demand for good ride quality combined with a modicum of good handling attributes. The ECS uses air bladders in conjunction with conventional coil springs to firm or soften the suspension depending on driver or road demand. Standard tires are P195/60R15 Yokohama AX 323 steel-belted radials mounted on 15 x 6 alloy wheels.
Our last entry, the Merkur XR4Ti, despite the name, is one of Ford's better ideas since the new-look, new-feel Continental Mark VII. The Merkur's combination of modern styling, generous interior appointments, performance and handling, not to mention price, should make it popular with the hordes of young achievers who have so far been faithful only to the BMW gospel.
The car started life as the Ford of Europe Sierra and made its first appearance at the Paris Auto Show in 1982. In place of the European 2.8-liter V-6, the Merkur is equiped with the 2.3-liter turbocharged four, a modified version of the turbo mill you'll find in the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. Considerable massaging and fine-tuning have eliminated the vibration and harshness we encountered in the first editions of this engine, which hit the market two years ago. The port-injected turbo makes 170 hp and delivers a healthy 195 lb-ft of torque. The only transmission offered at the start of production was a 5-speed manual but an automatic is now available. For our contest we chose the 5-speed, natch. None of the refined autobahnstorming charm or styling of the Sierra was lost in the translation, and everything, from the bizarre but wonderful biplane rear spoiler to the interrior touches, has been retained. The front suspension is conventional MacPherson struts, while the rear uses an independent semi-trailing arm arrangement. The brakes are fairly straightforward with discs up front and drums in the back. The Merkur rides on standard equipment P195/60HR14 Pirelli P6s.
THE TESTING
The testing took place at the famed Riverside racetrack. Riverside is yet another racetrack falling victim to encroaching housing development. The syndrome is typical and parallels what happens around airports. People buy houses near an airport because they're cheap and, after they move in, decide they don't like the noise and want the airport to mvoe. Same thing with racetracks.
There wasn't a whole lot of doubt going in that the Merkur would probably walk away with all the acceleration tests. Simply on the basis of its 17.1 lb/hp power-to-weight ratio, lowest of any car in the field, the Merkur had it cinched. The acceleration runs confirmed our suspicions but the contest wasn't exactly a rout for the Merkur. A look at the aceleration results will reveal that in the quartermile ETs, the MR2 was only .05 sec behind the Merkur and the Mirage only .16 sec behind the MR2. In fact, the first six positions in the quarter mile were separated by only 1.23 sec.
The Subaru made it to a surprising 4th in the quarter-mile follies, beating the 200SX, Maxima, Jetta, Spectrum, Galant, and Sprint. Subarus--even the turbos--were never exactly acceleration tigers, chickens would be more like it, so it was heartening to see that the new cammer motor fulfilled its promise.
In the asbestos wars, the Mirage clearly outclassed the field by coming to a halt from 60 mph in a startling 122 ft. Incredulous, our man Brockman repeated the exercise and turned in an identical stopping distance. Second place went to the Jetta and 3rd to the Subaru, again showing us that Subes have come a long way. We were surprised the MR2 did so poorly in the braking tests. It took the middie a very long 152 ft to stop. You would think that its light weight, 4-wheel disc stoppers, and an engine placement favorable to turning in short braking distances would have put it near the top of the list. If you compare the Mirage's brake swept area per ton ratio of 221 sq in./ton to the MR2's 273 sq in./ton, the Mr2 does in fact have more braking surface; and its low finishing position becomes even more puzzling. The only conclusion we could come to was that the MR2 needs a bigger footprint, or better tires.
In the cone chasers' nightmare, the slalom, the results were prett much as we expected. The Mirage, with it asymmetric A008 tires, taut suspension, and quick responding steering took 1st place with the MR2 just behind it in 2nd. One surporise was the Galant, which came in 4th, edging out the MErkur by a hair. The nausea twins, Grable and Smith, who serve as pilot and timer for the slalom runs, noted that the Subaru and Merkur had some peculiar handling traits. Both suspensions seem to take several sets during transitions and it was next to impossible to get a consistent rhythm going through the cones. The Galant was ited as being surprisingly stable for a softly suspended and understeer-prone car.
For the final test, we broke camp in Riverside, and made for the skidpad in Pomona. The results for the top three finishing positions were so close you could almost, but not quite, call them a tie. The Jetta just barely squeaked by the Mirage by a margin of .02 sec, which translates to a .002 g difference in roadholding ability. Not a whole lot in the real world. The revealing facts about the skidpad results only point out how far front-wheel-drive technology has come in recent years. The jetta and Mirage (1st and 2nd) edged out the mid-engined rear-drive MR2 and the rear-drive Merkur (3rd and 4th, respectively). As you might expect, the MR2, due to its low center of gravity, was by far the easiest to drive around the skidpad but was thwarted in its pursuit of the outright win mostly by the less than otpimum choice of tires. With some real rubber, the Toyota would have won hands down. Outright roadholding was never one of Subaru's strong suits and that fact was reconfirmed by its being the only car in the field to take longer than 13 sec to get around the 200-ft-diameter pad. Terminal understeer, excessive roll angles, and awful tires all contributed to the Sube's demise.
RIDE AND DRIVE
With the instrumented portion of the testing completed, we packed it in for the day and headed off for our luxurious digs in Claremont. As the home of several institutions of higher learning, we felt it the kind of place where our search for the truth would benefit from the prevalent atmosphere of investigation and extrapolation. After a dinner of burgers, fries and Clamato juice (no joke), we retired to bed and were lulled to sleep by the sounds of what seemed to be a gymnastically inclined couple in the next room. It sounded like Mr. T slam-dancing with Gloria Vanderbilt.
Early the next morning we assembled to distribute rotation sheets and car keys and began our assult on the San Gabriel Mountains. This is the subjective part of the testing where we evaluate cars on their styling, quality, chassis dynamics, dollar value, comfort and convenience, etc. About halfway into the first rotation, some of us began to doubt the wisdom of having dined at Earl's Burgers and Compressor Parts. We thought that Original Kerosene Recipe on the menu was a joke.
The route for this phase of the testing encompasses suburban street driving, freeway cruising, and mountain twisties that climb to 5000-plus ft above sea level; in short, everything one would most likely encounter with the exception of sub-freezing weather and Death Valley heat. In no particular order, here's how the cars stacked up.
Chevy's Spectrum came in for a lethal dose of criticism. Here's a sampling of representative comments: "Cheap transportation--with the accent on cheap"; "Mr. Average Car"; "Protective steering effort. It builds so high with increasing cornering force that no mortal will be able to get in trouble." The consensus according to the scorebooks and comments contained therein seemed to indicate that Chevy aimed for the lowest possible denominator and succeeded in hitting that mark. If this car had been introduced five or six years ago, it would have had a much warmer reception. But other Japanese makers have so thoroughly spoiled us with good, inexpensive cars, that the Spectrum just seems too little, too late. Heavy steering, lots of roll angles, and slow responses were qualities universally condemned by our test staff. Two comments seem to sum it all up. "The Civic showed us that inexpensive doesn't have to mean cheap or uncooperative," and "Roomy and economical, yes. But for a very few dollars more, I'll take a Mirage or a Honda."
Chevy's other entry, the Sprint, fared much better despite the fact it's even more spartan and less well appointed than the Spectrum. One tester said, "Just enough cute runabout in it to excuse the cheapness." And another said, "A boring but benign econobox." Unlike the Spectrum, the Sprint has very few pretensions. It doesn't try to be anything it's not. Once you accept it on those terms, it becomes an endearing little piece that makes all sorts of common sense but not a car you could fall in love with."
The Merkur generally posted very positive reviews. The interior appointments and ergonomics, high quality levels, and overall design all got high marks as is evident in its finishing position in those categories. It took 2nd place in Styling and Design, 1st in Quality Control, and 2nd in Comfort and Convenience. One area that got lots of criticism was the suspension. Most felt it wasn't up to the car's intended role in life. "The suspension is too soft for what this car is supposed to be. Not as stable or precise as it should be." One other tester said, "A more aggressive handling package should be offered for those who wouldn't mind sacrificing some ride quality in exchange for higher cornering limits."
The Mitsubishi Galant scored fairly high in some areas and not so high in others. It took a 4th place in Styling and Design, a 3rd in Comfort and Convenience, and a surprising 4th in Handling, even though all-out handling is not part of this car's priorities. It didn't score as well in other areas simply because of the stiff competition already out there. One tester said it best: "Surprisingly nice, but the average in this class is very high to begin with." One sore point with the car is its anemic drivetrain. The normally aspirated four going through the automatic transmission kept the car from doing better in the acceleration tests and really hurt in the fuel economy test. One tester summed it up with, "As good a buy as you're likely to get in this class, provided, performance and handling aren't your priorities."
The Mirage's combination of performance, handling, interior room, and value for money endeared it to everyone on the test crew. Sample comments: "A blast to drive. Doesn't feel anything like an econobox from in there." Another said, "A neat, fun-to-drive rocket. The next cult car." Some testers noted the car's understeering characteristics, but felt the Mirage's other virtues more than made up for that. "Hard to imagine getting more boot for your buck. Lovely engine, great tires, but there's plenty of understeer."
Everyone unanimously agreed that the Maxima SE's single greatest attribute is the terrific 3.0-liter V-6 engine. The rest of the car, most notably the styling and handling, kept it from getting any high marks in those other areas. The best the Maxima could do in the Styling and Design category was a lowly 7th. The handling put it right in the middle of the field with a 5th-place finish. Comments ranged from " A terrific motor but disappointing 'new' body," to "A little front-heavy and unresponsive but a good highway car." The pen road is where most testers believed the car belonged. "Not designed for fun on mountain roads, but it's the car I'd pick for a long highway haul."
The Maxima's stablemate, the 200SX Turbo, came in for some mixed reviews and a certain amount of indifference. One tester said, "Awful upholstery. Ditto instruments. It's difficult to generate any emotion either positive or negative about this car." Another said, "It's kinda nice looking and sort of handles okay. But make mine a Prelude." Nissan was accused of trying to make the 200SX wear too many hats and play too many roles. "I wish Nissan would make up its mind compromises."
Subaru's all-new entry, called simply the Coupe, took a lot of flak for its looks. The digital instruments got the bulk of the abuse. "Of all the digital dashes I've seen," one tester said, "this is the only one that actually looks like it needs quarters to operate." The dominant instruments, tach and boost gauge, are segmented bar graphs that taper at the top and seem to point toward the horizon. A pictograph of the car sits between these two and indicates high or low suspension status. It looks like you're supposed to keep the car between the two graphs or else some interplanetary Gorgon will swallow you up. The video game environment is further reinforced by the joystick shift lever. One tester simply said, "Gimme a break, willya!" Another said, "Definitely all-new, definitely Subaru, definitely other-worldly." With the exception of a 3rd-place finish in acceleration, testament to its new turbo mill, and two 6th places in handling and fuel economy, it never climbed above 8th in any other category.
Toyota's MR2, on the other hand, got unanimous raves. "Delightful balance. Now this is the modern sports car!" "Nice piece. I want one and deserve it." "This is it. The ultimate fun-to-drive sportster." Of the nine test categories, the MR2 took 1st place in Styling and Design, Comfort and Convenience, Ride and Drive, and Chassis Dynamics. It took 2nd in Quality Control, Dollar Value, and Acceleration, and 3rd in Handling and Fuel Economy. Apparently this is a car that has it all. Sample comments: "Terrifc high-winding motor. I wish the steering wasn't so light, but for that kind of money, who cares?" "The mind boggles at what this car would be like with sticky Yokohamas, Eagle GTs, Comp TAs, etc." The choice of tires and high interior noise were the only two areas that the testers criticized. "If there's any criticism to be made, it's excessive engine noise. But most enthusiasts will regard it as music."
Last but not least, the VW Jetta got lots of respect all around, but not a lot of enthusiasm. One tester said, "Not great looking or a rocket but does most things very well." The Jetta isn't the kind of car you can warm up to very easily. One comment summed it up best: "It's solid, high quality, and full of traditional German values, but there's nothing about it that takes your breath away."
The final test, fuel economy, was conducted by a lone driver who took each car over a 150-mile test loop. Once all the numbers were in, they were dumped into our Kaypro computer, crunched, and the winner was spit out. If you haven't already peeked, the winner of Motor Trend's 1985 Import Car of the Year competition is the Toyota MR2.
CONGRATULATIONS
What is it that separates the winner from the many worthy also-rans? It's tough to narrow it down to one or two areas. As we've seen in the past and as we're seeing this year, the winner isn't necessarily the fastest, the most expensive (or the cheapest), or the one with the neck strainingest lateral acceleration number. The key to success is a balance of all those qualities plus one more: that of fun-to-drive. The MR2 delivers on everything.
In the 2-seater market where the MR2 will complete, it simply outshines everything else in sight. You want affordability? How about that $11,000 asking price. Fuel economy? How about a real-world 36.02 mpg. High technology and something you're not embarrassed to pop the hood on? How about that 16-valve head with dual overhead cams, and that fuel injection in that little 1.6-liter mill that makes 112 hp? These are not qualities you'll find in every dealership in town. In fact, you won't find this combination of looks, performance, handling, high technology, and list price anywhere else but in a Toyota dealership. The only real problem with this car is that there won't be enough to go around. With production limited to 3000 cars per month for the U.S., dealers will be asking premiums. Unfortunately, there are no blanks in our test booklets for this type of supply-and-demand situations. We're in the car testing business, not economics; and as far as we're concerned, the MR2 is the most significant and best value for money in 1985.
Products: Chevrolet Spectrum (Automobile) - Evaluation
Chevrolet Sprint (Automobile) - Evaluation
Mitsubishi Mirage (Automobile) - Evaluation
Nissan Maxima (Automobile) - Evaluation
Merkur XR4Ti (Automobile) - Evaluation
Mitsubishi Galant (Automobile) - Evaluation
Nissan 200SX (Automobile) - Evaluation
Subaru XT (Automobile) - Evaluation
Toyota MR2 (Automobile) - Evaluation
Volkswagen Jetta (Automobile) - Evaluation