CLOSE
Page 994

by -

While the proportions are the same, the new model is a slightly larger car. At 3626 mm (with a wheelbase of 2467 mm), it is 570 mm longer and the overall width is also 515 mm more than the original 1410 mm. In comparison to our Malaysian ‘minis’, the Mini is bigger than the Juara and Kenari but the Mini sits lower at 1416 mm.

SAFEST IN CLASS
In its time, the original Mini’s design was not constrained by demanding safety regulations but the its successor has to offer high levels of protection and the engineers’ task was made more challenging given the small size of the car, particularly the short front end and very short rear section. However, with computer aids and many high-tech materials, they were able to design a structure which is claimed to set new standards for a car of this size. All body components absorbing energy during a collision have been developed according to BMW’s strictest safety principles and the bodyshell can achieve a 4-star rating in the independent Euro-NCAP crash tests. In fact, it has done well enough in crash tests that BMW intends to offer it in the US market in due course as no major engineering changes will need to be made to meet US safety standards.

The passenger cell, with extra-wide door reinforcements, has 2 ~ 3 times greater torsional stiffness than other models in this. Both the driver and front passenger are protected by frontal airbags (impact-dependent) fitted as standard in the steering wheel and instrument panel, as well as side airbags integrated in the seats. There is also an optionally available head airbag system (AHPS 2 – Advanced Head Protection System) and like all BMWs, the central locking system has a crash sensor which will automatically unlock all doors if the car has a severe accident.

Drivers of the new Mini generation also get technological advances for greater active safety such as disc brakes on all wheels, ABS with Cornering Brake Control and Electronic Brake Force Distribution. Customers can also add Dynamic Stability Control and Traction Control at extra cost to increase motoring safety in slippery situations. And where owners of the original Mini had to add spotlights to increase illumination of the road ahead, new Mini owners will get superior lighting with the optional xenon headlight systems.

ONE ENGINE SIZE FOR NOW
For the time being, the Mini will be offered with only one engine displacement of 1.6 litres. This is not one of the engines used in the BMW 3-series nor adapted from any of the BMW engine families. It is a new design developed for the Mini and is manufactured at a BMW-Chrysler joint-venture factory in Brazil. The 4-cylinder engine has four valves per cylinder, EFI and meets the latest Euro-4 emission control standards. Service intervals are between 16,000 to 20,000 kms, depending on usage conditions.

continued on page 3

by -

The British may have been angered by the way BMW, after acquiring the Rover Group in 1994, suddenly dumped it last year; Rover being sold off to an independent group and Land Rover being sold to Ford. It was a move that saw even the British government getting involved as the sell-off meant the loss of thousands of jobs.

However, that unpleasant episode can now be consigned to the history books as the Brits are probably delighted that BMW has continued the line of an icon of the British motoring industry – the beloved Mini. In selling off the Rover Group, BMW decided to retain the Mini as a separate brand in its strategy offer a smaller model than the 3-Series Compact.

While some may draw parallels with Volkswagen’s new Beetle, another much-loved small car that was in production for many decades, the difference is that the new Mini developed by BMW faithfully retains the original design and engineering concept whereas the new Beetle is technically different from the original (the engine is at the front). For BMW, retaining the original FWD arrangement is something radical as the company has so far chosen to stick to RWD for all its cars.

In developing the new Mini, Frank Stephenson, its Chief Designer, did not intend to merely offer a retro concept but instead chose to take the original ideas and use the latest technology to replicate them as well as the original concept. In other words, the result was what the original designer, the late Sir Alex Issigonis, may well have created if he had today’s technology to use.

“The new Mini is a future-oriented interpretation of a genuine classic,” declared Stephenson. “On the one hand, it reveals clear reminiscences of the original and on the other hand, it offers the best technology available in this segment of the market today. This is a car that spells out the joy of living, bringing together different groups and classes within society, different countries and generations. And it is exactly the opposite of a status symbol.”

NEW AND OLD STYLES
From any angle, the new Mini will attract attention. Apart from its compactness which makes it ‘cute’, there are also many design elements – modern interpretations of the original – which give it uniqueness in an age of computer-designed minicars. Like the Beetle, the dominating headlights give the car its unique face, always conveying an impression of friendliness. The chrome grille also has a familiar shape but gone are the skinny steel bumpers; in the 21st century version, the bumpers are of lightweight material and tightly integrated with the bodywork. Three non-metallic finishes and five metallic ones are offered, with, predictably, British Racing Green being among them.

The side view is unmistakably Mini and as a BMW Asia manager noted, even his 3-year old daughter could relate it to the original. “When I showed her the new Mini, she immediately said it was “Mr Bean’s car,” recalled Ramesh Divyanathan, PR Manager at BMW Asia.

The extremely short rear end, the steep-rising side sections, and even the shapes of the windows all seem to have some similarity to the original. A particularly impressive feature is the reinterpretation of the rear lights carrying traditional design into the new millennium. The new Mini is one of the very few cars with its rear lights outside of the luggage compartment opening. However, in a departure from the original design, the rear door now opens together with the glass screen, making it a hatchback.

continued on page 2

by -

NOT STAGNANT
Technically, the Mini was not stagnant after its launch and Issigonis was constantly introducing new ideas while maintaining the basic concept of compactness. In 1965, a 4-speed automatic transmission version from AP was available, a noteworthy option at that time.

Although not instantly evident, Mini enthusiasts will be able to tell one generation from the next by the cosmetic changes that were made from 1967 onwards. Of significance was the arrival of the Mini Clubman in 1970 which had a 998 cc engine (later 1098 cc) and also the Mini 1275 GT with a single carburettor engine and Cooper ‘S’ front disc brakes.

Twelve years after launch, in 1971, more than 318,000 Minis were produced worldwide to make it the best year ever (with 102,000 sold in Britain alone). The first million milestone was reached in 1965, the second million in 1969 and the third million in 1972. By February 1986, a cumulative total of five million Minis had been produced worldwide.

CONTINUED POPULARITY
Throughout the 1970s, the Mini’s popularity continued unabated and it was usually the best-selling British car. The two energy crises also helped sales along as people saw a need for a car which was frugal on fuel at a time when petrol supplies were restricted or going up in price.

However, the energy crises that rocked Europe had also spurred other manufacturers to develop ‘super-minis’ slightly bigger than the Mini and with a hatchback style. These rivals, like Ford’s Fiesta, began appearing from the mid-1970s and most copied the Mini’s transverse engine and FWD concept.

By then, BL had embarked on its own ‘super-mini’ development but this was not, as many had thought, a replacement for the Mini. It was a slightly bigger car to compete with the newcomers, while the continued popularity of the Mini inspired the company to keep it in production. The new car, known as the Austin Mini-Metro, was launched in 1980. It used many Mini ideas like the gearbox in the sump and FWD but offered a bigger body and an extra door behind.

While the Mini’s sales were not hard hit, they were nevertheless declining and a decision was made to shrink the range during the early 1980s. Eventually, only two models would remain in constant production – the Mini City and the more luxuriously-equipped Mini Mayfair, both with a 1-litre engine and either manual or automatic gearboxes.

When the Rover Group came into existence, the Mini was not dropped as the company felt there was enough demand to warrant continued production. In recent years, annual production has been around the 20,000-unit level, creditable for a car that was first launched in 1959.

SPECIAL EDITIONS
To keep interest high and provide some ‘freshening-up’ periodically, various special editions have been produced. These have usually appeared on occasions like the 20th and 25th anniversaries or carried English themes like the Mini Ritz, Mini Chelsea and Mini Piccadilly editions. Even Mary Quant, who introduced the mini-skirt to the world, was commissioned to create a Mini “Designer”. In 1990, nostalgia was at its peak when the Mini-Cooper was re-introduced, albeit with an initial limited run of only 1000 units. It was the first time a 1275 cc engine had been used in ten years.

And, of course, there were owners who had their Minis converted to Cabriolets. Demand was considered great enough that Rover developed a production version which went on sale in June 1993.

THE JAPANESE LOVED IT
Outside Britain, demand for the Mini is still amazingly good, especially in France, Italy and Japan. In 1991, about a third of Mini production was sent to Japan, more than the sales in Britain. In fact, considering that the Japanese had numerous more modern minicars to buy, it was the ultimate accolade to Issigonis that they wanted a Mini. One of the reasons for the Japanese love affair with the Mini is their love of nostalgia, particularly strong for the ‘Swinging ’60s’. The Mini seemed to provide some sort of link to that evocative era.

As emission control regulations grew more stringent, it was expected that the Mini would be forced into retirement. But the engineers were able to make the engine meet the emission standards by adding a catalytic converter with fuel-injection in the Cooper 1.3i.

However, the Mini was never expected to survive into the 21st century. Safety regulations that grew increasingly demanding made it virtually impossible for the Mini’s original design to pass without substantial modifications to incorporate airbags, door beams and a stronger structure. BMW, which then owned Rover, did not see such an investment as being worthwhile and besides, the changes would have been so extensive that much of the car’s character would have been lost.

By the 1980s, assembly in markets outside the UK ceased (Wearne’s sold the last unit in Malaysia sometime in 1982) but Rover continued to make it till the latter part of the 1990s. According to one of the Rover marketing directors of the early 1990s, “the Mini would continue to be supplied as long as people wanted it” and most years, there were at least 35,000 people around the world (mostly in Japan) wanting to own a new one.

Like a good civil servant, the Mini’s service over almost four decades will be remembered as “a job well done”, for it made car ownership possible for many millions of people around the world. As a senior executive in Rover noted in 1995: “Few products – or people – become real ‘legends in their own lifetimes, but the Mini has achieved such status while still being an entirely valid response to the motoring demands of the 1990s.”

-Chips Yap-

by -

The original Mini was undoubtedly an icon of the British motor industry, a much loved ‘small wonder’. Totally classless in image, it was bought by everyone from royalty to the housewife; even Mr. Bean and the guys who did ‘The Italian Job’ chose the little car. Although the Mini was officially launched on August 26th 1959, its story actually goes back to 1956. In the wake of the Suez crisis, there was petrol rationing in England and this popularised the “bubble-cars” from Germany for a while. Leonard Lord, then chairman of the British Motor Corporation (BMC), decided that a small car was needed ‘to drive those bubble cars off the road’ and gave instructions to commence development – immediately and quickly. The brief was simple: a car with seating for four that would be smaller than the A35 and Morris Minor, and use of an existing BMC engine.

The man who received the directive was Alec Issigonis who had come to England from Turkey. Issigonis’ father was a naturalised Briton of Greek descent and his mother came from a German family which, coincidentally, was related to Bernd Pichetsreider, the former chairman of BMW who had presided over the acquisition of the Rover Group in the mid-1990s.

Issigonis was an automotive engineer who had come from Alvis (and before that Rootes and Morris) in 1955. He was asked to concentrate on advanced concept design and was thus in a position to take a fresh look at small car design.

His aim was to design the smallest possible car which could still accommodate four adults and luggage. Issigonis was obsessed with getting maximum usable space out of the minimum (hence the origin of the ‘Mini’ name) dimensions. The ‘box’ was set at 3.04 metres (about 10 ft long), 1.21 metres (4 feet) high and wide, of which 80% would be used by passengers and luggage. This meant that only about 610 mm was left for the powertrain. To get it all in, he had to resort to using 10-inch wheels and all-independent suspension.

But the real masterstroke came from turning the engine ‘east-west’ and driving the front wheels via a gearbox and a final drive built into the sump. Issigonis was familiar with front-wheel drive and admired Citroen and DKW cars which had such a drivetrain. Because the gearbox was under the engine, it needed a specially-designed clutch on the outboard side, while the differential gear for the final drive went at the back. Equal-length driveshafts were used. The engine selected was a version of BMC’s well-proven and successful A-series, first used in the Austin A30 in 1951. It started out as 948 cc but was reduced to 848 cc for the Mini.

PURE FUNCTION
The styling was pure function, and even the welding seams were put on the outside for ease of manufacture (Minis built in the 1990s also had the same external welding seams). It was 3.04 metres, as planned, and although boot capacity was limited, the idea was that owners could leave the boot door open flat and tie additional luggage on it!

One of the features which many people recall were the door bins which it had been possible to incorporate because Issigonis insisted on having sliding windows; this made it unnecessary to allow space for a winding mechanism, thus maximising interior width. Later on, of course, the bins disappeared as winding windows were used.

The project was first known as ‘XC 9003′ but later changed to ‘ADO 15′. Its design period was incredibly short even by today’s standards – just six months in 1957. Two running prototypes were available in October and by July 1958, Lord was invited to take a test-drive around the factory. The chairman was satisfied after a 5-minute spin and told Issigonis he wanted it in production within 12 months. Issigonis met the deadline and the first cars left the assembly lines at Longbridge and Cowley in May 1959 for the launch in August.

AUSTIN AND MORRIS VERSIONS
Both Austin and Morris versions were available, identical except for badges and grilles. For additional differentiation, colour ranges were separate for the Austin Se7en (as the Austin version was known) and for the Morris Mini-Minor. Standard and deluxe equipment levels were available, the latter having chrome-plated trim, opening rear quarter windows and ashtrays at the back. In 1959, the standard model cost £497 while the Deluxe model was £537.

The early Minis were full of idiosyncrasies, some practical while others were, well, not so practical. The gearlever was a long, thin stalk coming straight out of the final drive housing. There was a separate starter button on the floor and the battery was in the boot. There was no dashboard but a full-width parcel shelf was installed with the speedometer and fuel gauge set in the centre (Issigonis felt it would overcome the problem of separate arrangements for left-hand drive variants).

Then there were also the English penchant for picnics which led Issigonis to ensure that there would be enough space under the rear seat for a wicker basket. This idea was, however, not popular even though BMC offered accessory baskets.

Because the old Austin Seven and Morris Minor names were not so well known in many countries, the export models were known as Austin 850 or Morris 850. None went to the USA where BMC sold MG and Austin-Healey sportscars. Small cars like the Mini just weren’t wanted in the American market that loved their cars big, the VW Beetle being an exception.

SLOW START
The Mini didn’t take the market by storm from Day One, contrary to what might have been imagined. The first year’s production amounted to less than 20,000 units, followed by more than 100,000 units in 1960. In 1962, the production volume exceeded 200,000 units and remained above this figure until 1977, an impressive time-span.

Lord’s original intention to ‘drive those bubble-cars’ out was never realised as they became virtually extinct on their own by 1960. So the Mini had really to carve its own niche in the marketplace.

Predictably, the Mini was greeted with some derision, even suspicion, because of its size and unconventional features. FWD was not yet widely accepted by British buyers but positive press reports helped draw attention to its many merits. The adoption of the car by the “Chelsea set” – the equivalent of the yuppies of later decades – also helped, along with owners like the British royal family members, the Beatles, King Hussein of Jordan, Steve McQueen, Peter Sellers, Cliff Richard, Niki Lauda, Paul Newman and even Enzo Ferrari (who had three that he said he thoroughly enjoyed), among many other famous personalities.

ENTER THE MINI-COOPERS
While the Mini was recognised as a practical car for the masses, it also gained additional fame when the Mini-Cooper was introduced in 1961. Fitted with a twin carburettor 997 cc tuned engine inspired by F1 Champion Constructor John Cooper and equipment such as front disc brakes, a remote control gearchange and extra instruments, the Mini-Cooper – with distinctive two-tone colour schemes – became the car to be seen in at posh places.

Although modified Minis had been used for racing and made a debut in rallying with the 1959 RAC Rally (a standard 848 cc model finished 6th in the 1960 event), it was the Mini-Cooper that brought the car into the motorsports world. The Mini-Cooper and its even more potent Mini-Cooper ‘S’ variant (with a 1071 cc engine) became cars to be reckoned with on the tracks. The Coopers formed the backbone of the BMC Competition’s Department with the first big success coming from Pat Moss’ win in the 1962 Tulip Rally.

THE MONTE CARLO WINS
The Monte Carlo Rally victories made a significant impact on public perception of the Mini, and the first one came in 1964 with a Cooper ‘S’ crewed by Paddy Hopkirk and Henry Liddon. That the win was no fluke was proven in 1965 and 1967 using the later 1275 cc Coopers. The BMC team had two of the original ‘Flying Finns’ – Timo Makinen and Rauno Aaltonen – who were very skilled in driving on snow and icy roads, and they revelled in the advantage of having FWD in their Minis.

Officially, the Mini scored three Monte Carlo wins but actually there was one more in 1966. This win was, however, taken away when officials inspecting the car after the event considered the halogen bulbs in the headlamps ‘non-standard’ and had the winning Cooper disqualified.

There were many other notable rally victories and high placings for the Mini during the mid-1960s but more powerful and specialised machines by rivals began to out-class the little cars by 1967. The last full season for the works team was 1968.

To promote the Mini in racing, BMC produced a ‘homologation special’ with a 970 cc engine – after the standard engine size had gone past one litre – just so the car could compete in the under 1-litre class of saloon car racing. In fact, where saloon car racing is concerned, John Cooper declared that the Mini was really the first true saloon car to go racing.

In Malaysia too, Minis made their mark in local races and rallies during the 1970s. They were cheap to acquire and easy to modify, and racing drivers like William Mei, Chong Kim Fah, Simon Velu, and S. Subramanian started off in Minis. In rallies, ‘Croc’ Tang, Doc Chin and Tengku Mudzaffar showed that the Mini’s small size and light weight were advantageous in the estates.

VARIATIONS SPROUT
Although the Coopers were the best-known derivatives, there were other equally good variants introduced in the car’s first decade. These included a van version, an estate car (known as the Austin Se7en Countryman and Morris Mini Traveller), upmarket versions with Riley and Wolseley badges and even a pick-up.

One of the more unusual derivatives was the Mini-Moke which was introduced in 1964. Conceived as a light utility vehicle, it was intended for military use but lack of ground clearance and only two-wheel drive made it unacceptable.

It didn’t fare well in the UK market as it was taxed like a car, rather than a commercial vehicle, and cost more. The Mini-Moke had better luck in other countries and although production ceased in England in 1968, it carried on in Australia and then in Portugal in 1980. The production rights were held by Cagiva, the Italian motorcycle company.

The Mini was, in a sense, a ‘world car’ as it was developed with the international market in mind. Its simple construction made it ideal for overseas assembly operations in many European and Commonwealth countries, Malaysia included.

Innocenti, the Italian company which also made the Lambretta, was already making some BMC models under licence and added the Mini to their range. The Innocenti Mini, under De Tomaso, underwent modifications and looked rather different. De Tomaso even tried installing a Daihatsu engine and transmission in it but the project failed due to lack of commercial viability.

continued on page 2

by -

Oriental Assemblers has completed Job 1 – the first production unit for a new model – of the Hyundai Elantra at its plant in Johor. The first unit came off the production line recently and in conjunction with the event, Oriental-Hyundai Sdn Bhd organised a special visit to the plant, which is IS09002 certified, for used car dealers and its sales managers.

During their visit, they were given a briefing on the background of the project, codenamed ‘XD’, to assemble the Elantra in Malaysia. It took a quick six months from the time the project got underway to Job 1 and was done with much assistance from Hyundai’s engineers. The company spent some RM7 million ringgit to set up a dedicated line for the model.

The visitors were then given a tour of the plant and shown areas such as the 6-level carpark, computerised airbag testing system as well as the new plastic painting system. Following the tour, the visitors had a chance to take a close look at the Elantra and also drove it around the premises.

The program included a quick trip across the Causeway to a Hyundai dealership in Singapore. There, the group was shown the showroom and service facilities and introduced to the full range of Hyundai models.

According to sources, Oriental-Hyundai will officially launch the Elantra on August 23rd and the pricing will be ‘competitive’.

    by -

    Honda will be launching a shared and eco-friendly urban transportation service in Singapore early next year. The service, known as the Intelligent Community Vehicle System (ICVS) has the support of the Singapore Eonomic Development Board and will have a trial period of three months.

    “Our first year target is to utilise a fleet of 50 petrol/electric hybrid cars and to set up 3~6 exclusive ICVS ports (parking lots) which will be established within the Central Business District (CBD),” said Satoshi Toshida, Managing Director, Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

    He added that Honda’s feasibility study had concluded that Singapore was an ideal environment for ICVS due to its compact land area; the government serious commitment to tackling transportation challenges in innovative ways; and the high quality of infrastructure and human resource skills available in the republic.

    Mr Toshida also announced that it will work with Honda’s distributor in Singapore, Kah Motor Co. Sdn. Bhd, in the aspect of vehicle set-up and maintenance. “In the coming months,” Mr Toshida explained, “we will be attracting the attention of potential users, or members as they will be known, and undertaking research to identify the number of potential members and their regular travel patterns in and around the CBD. They will be able to get information on the official website we have set up.”

    The ICVS service is designed to offer its members a flexible and relatively short-term vehicle rental, without the necessity of reservations, with a very affordable pricing structure based on annual fees and time/distance user charges. By obtaining maximum utilisation of the vehicles in the system, it is able to offer the lowest possible membership costs while, at the same time, reducing parking problems and their related environmental impact.

    The ICVS concept was first introduced by Honda in 1994 and has undergone various tests both in Japan and also the USA. Between October 1998 and June last year, a public demonstration of ICVS was conducted at Twin Ring Motegi in Japan utilising four types of specially-developed ICVS vehicles.

    From February to November 1999, Honda co-sponsored a mass transit station ICVS concept experiment called ‘Carlink’ with the University of California-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies using 12 natural gas-powered Honda Civics. And since March 1999 Honda has been co-sponsoring the IntelliShare programme, a free rent-and-return ICVS experiment with the University of California-Riverside using 15 Honda EV Plus electric vehicles.

    The cars used for the ICVS in Singapore will be Civics which will be powered by Honda’s Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) powerplant which is a combination of a small petrol engine and an electric motor. The first production model to use IMA was the Insight and because its exceptionally fuel-efficient and environment-friendly performance, Honda is going to use it for other models in coming years. IMA-equipped Civics are expected to be shown at the coming motorshow in Frankfurt in the near future.[More about IMA]

    Honda ICVS Singapore Pte. Ltd. was established in Singapore in February this year as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. to undertake R&D activities for commercial introduction of the ICVS service in Singapore.

    by -

    Fun. Rugged. Down to earth.

    Those were the objectives Ford’s designers set for themselves when they started the Escape project back in the mid-1990s. Toyota and Honda had shown that a big market existed for small sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and as the maker of the most SUVs in the world (the Explorer is the best-selling SUV on the planet), it was only right that Ford should offer a model in this growing segment.

    Distributors around the world were asked for their input on how such a new model should be and from the outset, it was decided that the target market was the younger buyer with an active lifestyle. In other words, the new SUV had to exude a sense of youthfulness, adventure and delight, and more importantly, it had to appeal to customers not only in North America but around the world. Observing and listening to what those who owned a RAV4 or CR-V had to say was useful as Ford product planners were able to determine what was missing and aimed to provide that in the Escape.

    Preliminary work began in Dearborn, Michigan, but across the Pacific in Japan, engineers at Ford’s Mazda affiliate were also at work on a small SUV. Keith Takasawa, chief program engineer for the Escape, along with 30
    other engineers and designers from the US, travelled to Japan to find out more about Mazda’s concept. Shortly after that meeting, the two teams decided to combine the projects. Takasawa was named the senior chief program engineer on both projects, and Yoshihito Nagamoto of Mazda became the chief engineer for the Mazda version. Separate Ford and Mazda design teams were established to ensure that each vehicle would be designed to meet market needs and brand identities. A common Ford-Mazda engineering team developed the platform.

    “We were confident with our Ford SUV heritage,” said Craig Metros, the Escape’s design manager. “Much of the design inspiration came from research aimed at understanding customer lifestyles, needs, tastes and activities.”

    As the design evolved, it was clear that the theme would have to be universally recognized for this model to have appeal in the 167 markets worldwide where it was intended to be sold. Ford engineers and designers
    spent two years in Japan working alongside Mazda engineers to ensure that the Escape would have outstanding spaciousness in interior and cargo room, yet be an efficient, internationally sized package. Mazda engineers also spent time in Dearborn with Ford team members. This merging of groups helped economize development costs for Ford and Mazda without sacrificing the brand image of either vehicle. It also helped to identify common components that could be used, further reducing the production cost.

    “We wanted to keep the Ford a Ford and the Mazda a Mazda,” emphasised Paul Linden, who was the Escape’s project management supervisor. “Both SUVs were given completely unique exterior designs. Functionally, the Escape is a ‘tough sport utility vehicle’, while the Mazda vehicle (called the Tribute) is positioned as a ‘sports sedan of small SUVs’.”

    Ford engineers wanted a vehicle with overall cargo area width to accommodate 4-foot widths of building material (for D-I-Y purposes), an important consideration for many customers in North America. The Mazda side, however, wanted a design that provided ample package space so owners could easily load bicycles in the rear. The end result was an SUV designed slightly taller and wider to satisfy the needs of consumers in both major markets.

    “In some cases, we were on the same page,” recalled Metros of the development process. “In others, we worked on ‘win-win’ solutions.”

    Research had shown that many small SUV buyers and even those buying large SUVs were women. They appreciated the higher ride height that gave a commanding view all round and the extra security of the ‘rugged’ body. So women’s inputs were given a lot of attention, particularly when it came to the package and proportions of the Escape.

    For example, ensuring the rear door could easily be reached and pulled down by all buyers, regardless of height or strength, was an issue that came out of such consumer interaction. So, too, did Escape’s 1770 mm height. Unlike some other SUVs, the Escape sits at a comfortable height, while retaining the solid, sturdy stance that SUV buyers like.

    “Input from female consumers was important because we knew that, even though many women buy SUVs, a large number were staying away from larger SUVs,” said Takasawa. “We paid a lot of attention to keeping the sill height low and packaging the driver’s seat and major controls very carefully with all drivers in mind. All drivers benefit as a result.”

    The overall dimensions of the Escape – 4395 mm in length, 1780 mm in width – were important considerations for the more densely populated cites in Europe and Asia. Clearly, a large vehicle would be less welcome and so it required clever interior packaging to also achieve the spaciousness required. This was helped by the generously dimensioned floorpan which has a 2620 mm wheelbase with a track of 1555 mm in front and 1550 mm in the rear, almost 70 mm wider than the Explorer.

    “We wanted a vehicle that looked like an agile and sure-footed athlete with the capability to go off-road but we did not want it to look toy-like because of its smaller size. So we also gave it a ‘serious SUV’ image,” said Metros

    To help underscore the athletic image, black side step bars are standard. These step bars feature non-slip surfaces, aiding ingress and egress and
    access to the roof rack for shorter people. The designers held numerous clinics with both men and women to help improve the location and design of the step bars, which are also a common sight on bigger Ford SUVs.

    “We located the step bar on the Escape after a very detailed analysis of this testing,” Takasawa revealed. “With the step bar in the new location, approximately 70% of women participating in a special test actually used it to get in and out of the vehicle. That is double the current usage rate for most step bars.”

    The Escape team knew that first impressions of a vehicle can be lasting, so great care was taken to ensure that Escape created a lasting impression. The full-grip door handles are just one example of the attention to detail in creating a robust identity. The handles are wide and thick, designed to be a handful when a customer grips them, giving a strong, durable, sure feel. Sophisticated computers were used to map the size of different hands. “We didn’t want anything that felt fragile,” Metros said. “The door handles were designed to feel confident and refined without losing Ford’s tough and rugged image.”

    Even sounds were studied meticulously. Door latches “borrowed” from the Lincoln LS (a luxury passenger car model) were modified to produce a more “truck-like” closing sound when used in the Escape.

    Attention to detail continued under the bonnet. Wires were grouped in neat bundles and even the caps for fluids such as coolant, windscreen and engine oil were positioned to face the customer when the bonnet is raised. “We went through the whole under-bonnet appearance,” explained Noah Mass, vehicle integration supervisor for the Escape. “When a customer looks at it, we want the engine compartment to look good. It’s yet another detail that strengthens the bond between the Escape and the customer.”

    “We believe we have created the ultimate blend – a tough SUV that will suit active, urban lifestyles.” declared J. Mays, Ford’s vice-president – Design.

    by -

    Shifting with the column-mounted lever is not as awkward as it appears and in fact, after a while, I actually began to like it. The closer proximity to the steering wheel makes it easier to operate during parking. But the shifting action is not positive enough and at times, you may need to watch the position indicator on the instrument panel to ensure you do not engage the wrong gear. For those who have memories of the old column-mounted shifters (in the cars of the 1960s and earlier), the one in the Escape is simpler and mostly in a straight line. Having never heard any complaints from owners of the CR-V or the Mazda MPV, I guess it is an acceptable idea.

    One thing that some people may find awkward is the position of the handbrake lever. Perhaps to save cost by not having to make two centre console designs, the handbrake lever has been left next to the passenger’s seat where it would be okay for a left-hand drive model but a bit of a reach for a driver who sits in the right seat.

    The Escape’s handling is impressive for a SUV and it has a really taut feel through corners. Roll is well controlled and the vehicle doesn’t deviate from the chosen line in most conditions. In theory, if understeer does set in, the drivetrain should transfer some power to the rear wheels and neutralise the condition but I did not feel this happening or maybe it was a smooth transition to 4WD. In the CR-V, the action is more obvious and you can sometimes feel the rear wheels ‘kick’ the vehicle back into line.

    I used to feel that such ‘on-demand’ 4WD systems did not make sense because any neutralisation of understeer would occur only after it had started. Full-time 4WD would not allow that to happen. However, a Ford engineer told me that the Control Trac-II system can react within a split-second to transfer power so it is still as good.

    The ride firm but not unpleasant and though the CR-V’s ride is softer, it also makes for mushier handling. For this type of vehicle, I’d say the level of ride comfort in the Escape is appropriate and have no complaints. Rather surprisingly, Ford specifies a tyre pressure of 29 psi which seems quite high but the engineers probably have their reasons.

    On a daily basis, the Escape is a nice vehicle to use and has a ‘big car feel’. Being an SUV, it has more ‘presence’ on the road which is useful in town. The ride height gives a commanding view all round and though the vehicle is tall, getting in and out is not troublesome because of the side steps provided.

    The storage spaces are very useful and those with a lot of odds and ends will welcome them. For those who don’t smoke, the ashtray will make a nice coin container. I discovered that the designers had provided an extra enclosure under the cover of the console box which seemed like it was meant to hold CD cases. However, this didn’t seem to work as the cases slid out all the time. Later on, I found out that it is meant to hold a tissue box and the dimensions are specifically for a Kleenex box. Must have been put there because women said they needed a place to keep their tissues!

    I was disappointed by the cupholders which were too shallow. A Ford executive once told me that the company’s designers spend a lot of time on cupholders but the ones in the Escape seem too shallow and also have too large a diameter. Even the largest MacDonald’s cups are not held securely so watch out when you put hot coffee there! The same applies to the rear cupholders which are down on floor level where they can be accidentally kicked out or exuberant cornering might dislodge them.

    These little flaws aside, the Escape is a well conceived product and for those who want more utility for whatever reason, but don’t like a window van or MPV, this new Ford would be ideal. For the price, it is very good value for money and as mentioned elsewhere, maintenance costs should be low.

    From the outset, Ford intended the Escape to be a global model and they sized it just right for most of the world outside North America. There was a plan to assemble it in Malaysia for the ASEAN market but that plan has been cancelled since the Malaysian government decided to delay opening up the auto sector for two extra years. As a result, Ford will make its Santa Rosa plant in the Philippines its supply base for the Escape. This is a pity as the larger volumes that could have been achieved in the Malaysian plant could have been beneficial to Malaysian suppliers as well as consumers since a higher volume usually brings down prices.

    -Chips Yap-

    by -

    It wasn’t my first experience of the Ford Escape as I had a brief drive at Ford’s test track in Dearborn, Michigan, last year on the ‘Ford Deep Dive’ event for the media last year. That drive wasn’t particularly conclusive as it was short and the speeds controlled over smooth roads. It was also the 3-litre V6 variant which is not being offered in Malaysia. I was impressed by the tight handling, good ride and low noise levels but wondered how a smaller 2-litre four would perform.

    Well, as you now know, Ford Malaysia is selling the Escape in Malaysia as a locally-assembled model and only the 2.0-litre version is available because the 3.0-litre would cost too much due to the duty structure that penalises large engine displacements.

    Being keen on SUVs these days, the opportunity to test yet another new one in the market was most welcome. Ford Malaysia’s move to import some units from Japan allowed an early feel of the Escape which was followed up by a longer one that covered over 7,000 kms.

    Back in April, the media had their first go at the Escape on the East Coast and the drive took in some off-road sections to prove that the Escape has the capabilities to go with the rugged looks. Of course, the off-road tracks weren’t terribly rough – in fact, the 4WD may not have been used – but it is not likely that the typical owner is going to venture into the sort of areas which the Lanun Darat crowd (the club for Ford Ranger owners) goes to.

    In moderate off-road conditions, the Escape performs fine and the high ground clearance is useful. However, the side steps take away some of the clearance too and the driver will have to be aware of them. As for the Control Trac-II system, this comes into operation without any driver action and it works so smoothly and transparently that you are unlikely to know it. For those who want to feel it in action, one way would be to drive up a sandy slope and stop midway. Then try accelerating off and you will feel the front wheels spin a bit and suddenly, the rear wheels also get powered up and push the vehicle forward.

    The differential lock is probably going to be unused by most people and should never be engaged on dry roads or even during rainy days. It is intended for constantly slippery surfaces (like ice) or deep mud where the vehicle is really bogged down. If you use it on dry roads, you’ll find the steering heavy and turning will require effort. Use it in such a situation for long and you will probably wear out some drivetrain components as well as cause unnecessary wear to the tyres.

    Talking of tyres, the ones that are fitted to the locally-assembled units have been specially tuned for the Escape. They are an excellent match and a good compromise between ride comfort and low noise. It is usually the case that SUV tyres are noisy and hard but the Goodyear GT Sport 70s (a new pattern in Malaysia) are as good as street tyres (which they are). According to a Goodyear Malaysia engineer, Goodyear Wranglers – a popular SUV tyre – were not suitable for the Escape as they are heavier tyres.

    The engine performance has a punchy feel but the gearing seems to be oriented towards highway cruising and this is evident from the fact that at 100 km/h, the engine is spinning at just over 2000 rpm. This has implications on low-speed motoring and in some cases, it may be better to disengage overdrive (easily done by depressing a button on the end of the shifter).

    Initially, I found the transmission to be ‘trigger-happy’ – just a slight pressure would bring a kickdown and the vehicle would zoom ahead. However, I soon discovered that this is the ‘default’ character of the shift program when the engine is new. Being an adaptive transmission, it takes a few hundred kms to adapt to the driver’s style. This was clear after some 5,000 kms that the Escape was driven; it eventually reached a point where shifting was optimised and smooth but the change was gradual. Of course, the shifting character will also change all the time as you may drive in a different manner but over a length of time, when the computer has obtained enough ‘samples’, it will provide an optimal program. After 7,500 kms, it no longer has the jerky shifting that was evident in the beginning.

    continued on page 2

    by -

    The 4-wheel drive capability of the Escape is similar to the CR-V’s, ie power is transmitted to the rear wheels only when necessary. This differs from the drivetrains in the Freelander and RAV4 where all four wheels are powered all the time, the differences between front and rear axles being compensated by a torque-sensing differential in the middle. The Escape’s system, known as Control Trac-II is a more economical approach and less complex too. Ford also believes that the majority of Escape owners will not require full-time 4WD capabilities and would be fine with a part-time capability. In fact, in the US, there are also Escapes with only front-wheel drive and some other manufacturers also find such FWD-only SUVs quite popular.

    Most of the time, 100% of power goes to the front wheels but when slippage is detected on the front wheels, power is immediately transferred to the rear wheels and depending on the amount of slip, the amount transferred can reach up to a maximum ratio of 50:50.

    One of the key elements of the Control Trac-II system, which was developed jointly by Ford, Mazda and Dana, is a power take-off unit (PTO) that attaches to the transmission. The PTO is a series of gears that transfers power to the rear axle through a two-piece drive-shaft – a design that allowed engineers to have a lower floor without sacrificing passenger roominess or cargo space. The ‘brains’ of the system is a rotary blade coupling (RBC) that governs the front/rear power proportioning. The RBC is located between the end of the drive-shaft and the rear axle differential. It contains a clutch pack and hydraulic pump. The system can detect differences in the rotational speed of the front and rear wheels. As soon as any slippage is detected, the hydraulic pump generates pressure to engage the clutch pack that redirects power to the rear wheels.

    Aiming perhaps to be one-up on the CR-V, the system also has one extra feature and that is a sort of differential lock which maintains the power split at 50:50 all the time. This is activated by a switch on the dashboard and is intended for extreme conditions like deep mud. It can’t be used for normal driving as there is no compensation in rotational speeds between the two axles. Incidentally, there is no transfer case to provide the dual gear ranges that are found in the larger SUVs, an omission which won’t be missed by Escape owners but which the ‘hardcore’ 4WD types would criticise!

    The Escape rides on 15-inch alloy wheels which seem a bit on the small side and this is pretty obvious from the way they look in the wheel wells. However, the standard rubber is a broad 225/70 and the pattern is a new one that Goodyear Malaysia is making just for the Escape. Called the GT Sport 70, it is street-oriented since most Escape owners are likely to travel in the urban jungle rather than the natural one.

    The suspension system is independent all round and together with the wide tracks, it offers a good stability. At the front are MacPherson struts which attach to rearward facing L-shaped lower control arms for lateral stiffness and road impact isolation. The springs and shocks are separately mounted to a dual-path upper-strut mount, further helping to isolate shock forces that
    otherwise would hamper suspension tuning and ride qualities.

    The independent rear suspension system is claimed to have, not surprisingly, a level of robustness beyond that of a sportscar and meets Ford’s light truck durability requirements. It has a multi-link layout with dynamic toe control for a degree of steering during cornering. When the vehicle is making a sharp turn on a rough road or taking a curve at speed, the vertical tyre orientation with the road is maintained, enhancing grip. However, the camber on the front and rear suspension cannot be adjusted.

    The steering system is a rack and pinion type (with power-assistance) mounted on a cross member. To increase rigidity and produce a tighter, more responsive steering feel, the steering gear has widely-spaced
    mounting locations.

    MAINTENANCE
    As with all Fords sold here, maintenance costs can be expected to be fairly moderate. The company suggests that, compared to the CR-V, Escape owners stand to save about RM3,400 over a 5-year period of ownership. That’s because the Escape service interval is 10,000 kms, longer than the CR-V’s 5,000 kms which means halving of the cost of engine oil among other things. The costs of changing parts according to the schedule during the same period for the Escape is said to be RM804.70, while for the Honda, it is RM2,224.20 (although Honda has lowered its parts prices since Ford made this calculation). Furthermore, Ford Malaysia offers five free services but Honda offers only three, which means that you would not pay for labour charges for the duration of the warranty which is 2 years/50,000 kms (whichever comes first.

    Prev1...1,000993994995...1,035Next Page 994 of 1,035
    -->

    NEW CAR LAUNCHES

    TEST DRIVES & REVIEWS

    Automotive News