By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Minivans — traditional minivans — are becoming scarce. GM and Ford don’t even make them anymore. That leaves Chrysler (Town & County — and its lower-rent Dodge sibling, the Caravan — which is also re-sold by VW as the Routan), the Honda Odyssey, Toyota’s Sienna — and the Nissan Quest, subject of this write-up.

Well, what’s it got that the others don’t have?

And does it lack stuff the others have got?

WHAT IT IS

The Quest is a full-size traditional minivan.

It’s not quite as much of a bus as competitors like the larger (and eight-passenger-capable) Toyota Sienna — and it’s much less expensive (at least to start) than the Chrysler Town & Country, which has a base price of $30,530.

And it’s the only one in which — if you listen really hard — you might just be able to hear the keening cry of a 370Z trapped somewhere deep down, desperate to escape.

Prices begin at $25,990 for the base S trim and run all the way to $42,640 for the LE.

WHAT’S NEW

The changes for 2013 are mostly minor — however, you can now get the DVD entertainment system in base trims. Last year, you had to move higher up the food chain before you could even order it. Nissan’s neat-o Around View camera system is now available, too. It shows you the entire perimeter of the vehicle — not just the area behind you.

WHAT’S GOOD

Still affordable — base trims, at least.

Not too big.

Looks pretty cool — for a minivan.

It can hustle — and not just in a straight line.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

Might be too small — if you need room for eight (or more room for cargo).

Third row folds forward and down — but not into the floor.

No AWD (Toyota Sienna still offers this).

UNDER THE HOOD

Yes, it’s a minivan — but wait. Under that minivan hood, you’ll find not just a V-6 — but the same basic V-6 used in the last generation Z car. It displaces 3.5 liters (vs. 3.7 liters in the current Z car) and though it only makes 260 hp (vs. 332 in the ’13 Z) it is, nonetheless, possessed of the same well-bred lineage — and so, displays some of the same characteristics. It revs freely — and fairly ferociously through the also-standard continuously variable (CVT) transmission.

You will be surprised — and hopefully, delighted — by this.

Zero to 60 takes about 7.9 seconds — a feat no K-Car based original-era minivan could come close to managing, unless you dropped it off the observation deck of the Sears Tower.

The Toyota Sienna — which comes with a 3.5 liter, 266 hp V-6, is slightly quicker. But not by much (7.6 seconds) and whatever advantage it has in a straight line, it loses when the road isn’t straight (more on this below).

The Chrysler T&C is stronger — 3.6 liter, 283 hp V-6 — but is (strangely) the least-quick of the bunch: Zero to 60 takes 8.3-8.4 seconds.

Honda’s Odyssey splits the difference — with a not-as-strong 248 hp 3.5 liter V-6, but a not-half-bad 7.9 second 0 to 60 run.

Mileage-wise, the Quest is also Z-car like: 19 city, 25 highway. But to be fair, the competition’s no better — and some are worse.

The T&C, for example, laps it up at the rate of 17 city, 25 highway. And the AWD-equipped Sienna (the only traditional minivan that’s still available with AWD) tilts the barrel all the way back and drains the entire thing down its gullet at the astonishing rate of of 16 city, 23 highway. (The FWD Sienna does better: 18 city, 25 highway).

Honda’s Odyssey again splits the difference — with a decent (relative to the others) 19 city, 28 highway . . . if you buy the extra cost six-speed automatic transmission. The standard-issue Odyssey with the less efficient five-speed registers 18 city, 27 highway.

Bottom line, they’re all pigs. Mileage not far off the return you’d get in a V-8 powered SUV.

It’s strange, when you stop to think about it, that none of the car companies have produced or even thought about producing a hybrid minivan. The platform is ideally suited to it (plenty of room for batteries and electric motors) and these not-so-mini-vans are in desperate need of more fuel-efficient drivetrains.

A diesel engine would be even better.

Uncle Sam’s 35.5 MPG CAFE requirement is literally almost upon us. The current crop of minivans is not even in the same solar system as far as compliance with that. If the car companies don’t do something dramatic between Now and Then (2016) traditional minivans are either going to get a lot more expensive — via “gas guzzler” fines.

Or they are going to be disappeared, just like Hummers — and for the same reason.

ON THE ROAD

If Lambo Diablos and 911 turbos are on the far right of the spectrum, then minivans as a class are on the far left. Practicality, versatility — common sense. Everything that Lambos and Porsche 911s aren’t. But, where’s the fun? Where’s the style?

Where’s the psychological return for that $40k I just laid down?

Ah, the minivan dilemma.

Nissan understands. Because the Quest at least tries to be a little bit fun — and even somewhat stylish, too (more on that below).

The first thing you notice once you close the door is that no electronic ghost of Marge Schott starts banging pots and pans together, demanding you buckle-up for safety . . . now! Nissan is the only major automaker whose new cars do not come with a can’t-be-turned-off “belt-minder” buzzer. Just a light — which is happily very easy to ignore. Unlike the BBs pelting your genitals Ding! Ding! Ding! of that blankety-blank buzzer.

This pleasant prelude of peace and quiet is itself almost enough reason to buy this van — if you must buy a minivan.

But the rest of it is all right, too.

The 3.5 liter V-6 — unlike the typical minivan six — is sourced directly from sports cars and sport sedans. It may have been down-tuned some for Quest duty, but it is still the same DOHC V-6 the entire automotive press rightly cheers when it’s under the hood of a Maxima or Altima — or Z car. And this alive engine is teamed with an excellent CVT transmission that is both smooth and quiet and angry, when called upon by your right foot to translate the engine’s output into forward thrust.

The Quest lopes along in a family-friendly way — until you punch it. Then, the Z-descended V-6 lights off, afterburners glowing — cams spinning and pistons pumping all the way to the 6,500 RPM redline. Which with this engine (and this CVT) feels good — and sounds good, too. The Quest’s roll-on power and mid-range pull are both excellent. If you want to get a handle on how unlike the original K car-era vans a modern minivan is, take a new Quest up to about 75 MPH — not far off the top speed of a circa ’84 Aries K van — and then floor it. As the white lines get closer and closer together, it is very easy to forget you’re driving a minivan.

Now, the other vans pull strongly, too — especially the Sienna. And the Honda Odyssey’s V-6 is also a jewel (and shared with sporty cars like the Accord). However, all of the Quest’s competition feels lunky-clumsy in the corners — especially the softly-sprung Sienna and even more so the utterly ungainly Chrysler T&C. Body roll is their business. So is over-boosted/too-light steering. That may be just the ticket for one-handed moving into and out of tight spaces at the shopping mall — but the Quest’s higher-effort steering is better once you’re moving at faster-than-school-zone speed.

You will not feel the need for speed in the Quest’s competition. Which, of course, the typical minivan buyer isn’t looking for anyhow.

But if you’re one of the few who wants what the minivan is there for — including a posh ride — but sometimes wouldn’t mind having a vehicle that can take a freeway off ramp above the recommended maximum without hurling your passengers centrifugally outward (and possibly causing them to hurl their lunches in the process) then you simply must try the Quest.

It’s like having a flask in church.

AT THE CURB

The Quest is the only big van of the Big Four that doesn’t offer a second row-bench and thus, eight-passenger seating. The second row consists of a pair of captain’s chairs — period.

The plus side to this is RV-esque accommodations for four (driver, front seat passenger and two adults in the second row) plus adequate accommodations for a couple of older kids/teenagers in the third row. Front row legroom (43.8 inches) is almost three inches more than in the Sienna and Odyssey and T&C (40.5 inches, 40.9 inches and 40.7 inches, respectively). On the other hand, if you need to carry around a gaggle of 12-year-olds, the Quest may not be accommodating enough and — frankly — it’s just too darn nice for that anyhow (more on that in a moment).

Also, the third row doesn’t disappear into the floor as in vans like the T&C and Honda Odyssey. They do fold forward and down, which leaves 108.4 cubes for stuff — but this is not even close to the Sienna’s container ship-esque 150 cubes, the T&C’s 143.8 cubes or the Odyssey’s 148.5 cubes.

It’s still a lot of cubes, though.

I put 20 50 pound bags of landscaping rocks in the back — and could have put another 20 back there plus stuff on top of that if I hadn’t been worried about what the weight of all those rocks was going to do to the not-my-Quest’s rear suspension. My job is to evaluate the thing — not hurt it. The second row center console can be removed, too — allowing you to carry some 2x4s home with the rear gate closed.

Here’s the deal as I see it: You may not need the 40-ish additional cubes of space you’d find in the other vans — or the theoretical eight passenger capacity. I put that in italic for a reason. Yes, you could theoretically cram eight people into a Sienna or Odyssey or T&C. But that second row bench is strictly coach-class. Fine for small kids and younger teenagers; too-close-for-comfort for adults. The third row even more so. The Quest — to Nissan’s credit — isn’t built in such a way as to comply with a technicality for PR purposes — “Hey, look! Eight passenger seating!” — but instead honestly touts and delivers realistic room for seven.

Further evidence of the Quest’s more adult-touring mien: The absence of square juice-box-shaped holders peppered all over. Instead, there are a relative handful of large, round cupholders — made for adult beverages. Er, you know . . . Starbucks coffee and such. The optional DVD player has a single large LCD screen — not multiple small ones to keep multiple small kids distracted and out of your hair.

And, there’s that 160 MPH speedo.

In a minivan.

The Odyssey’s only reads to 140. The T&C runs out at 120. And the Sienna registers no more than 110. All for good reason. It correlates with the diminishing sportiness of these vans — in exactly that descending order. It’s a very interesting “tell” — as my friends in Vegas might put it.

Now look at the Quest’s bodywork. It’s the most interesting-looking van since the GM dust-busters of the ’90s (e.g., Pontiac Trans Sport). It’s also the most distinctive van on the market. You could take the Honda badges off an Odyssey and swap them onto a Sienna — and put Sienna badges on a Town & Country — and most people would never know the difference. Same generic minivan shape. But there’s no mistaking the Quest’s boldly angular look — especially its virtually vertical drop-off at the rear. You could stand the Quest on its end and it would not topple over. All the others — being rounded-off — would.

At 200.8 inches long overall, the Quest is also about two inches stubbier than the Odyssey (202.9 inches) and T&C (202.8 inches). Two inches either way may not seem like much to quibble about — but I strongly recommend that you take any minivan you’re thinking about buying home before you buy it. To see whether it will fit in your garage first. It might — but with the door down, you might also not be able to walk between it and the closed door.

That’s when two less (or more) inches matters.

THE REST

Only two things annoyed me about this van — and one of them isn’t Nissan’s fault. That one would be the gimpy-granny pace of the electric-closing rear liftgate — which also dings (for “safety”) as it opens and closes. If you get exasperated and try to heave the thing shut (or pull it open) yourself, it will fight you.

Blame the lawyers, though. If it closed “too fast” someone might sue. I’m just grateful red cones don’t spew out to create a perimeter — and that there’s no flashing strobe light to accompany the auto-opening sequence.

The other thing — the one that Nissan could/should fix: Seat heaters that don’t heat much — and turn off too soon. The seats themselves are wonderfully cushy. But the heaters within are mediocre.

I averaged 19.3 MPG in mixed-use (city/highway) driving during my week with the Quest. This is par for the course. I got about the same out of the Odyssey, Sienna and T&C. Don’t kid yourself about these kid-mobiles. They are among the most consumptive things on wheels. Arguably, their atrocious gas mileage is the least family-friendly thing about them.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Like the others in this segment, I think the Quest is too nice a van for screeching, jam-smearing, snot-spewing, muddy feet kicking seven-year-olds. You could use it for that, of course. Just as you could take a new Range Rover and sink it in three feet of mud. But — why? There are jacked-up ’78 Jeep CJs for that. And there are other vans better suited for the role of kid-carter, such as the Dodge Caravan or the rebadged Routan. All the vans in this category are potential min-Madden mobiles, available with many bells and whistles, swaddled in the hides of numerous cows. Each can approach or even pass the $45k mark, fully dressed out. But of all of them, the Quest just seems to me to be even less of a suburbanite kid-schlepper — perhaps because it tries so hard to be something more.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• 2013 Toyota Sienna Review
• 2012 Chrysler Town & Country Review
• 2013 Mazda CX-9 Review
• 2013 Acura RDX Review
• 2012 Jeep Patriot Review

Each Wednesday, we’ll publish quick summaries of the articles from the last week on TheNewspaper.com. We’re doing this because these articles are often strongly connected to the issues that National Motorists Association members are interested in.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Maryland, UK: Complaints Upheld Against Speed Camera Operators
Members of the public are having success holding speed camera companies and their customers accountable. This week, governmental agencies in England and Maryland upheld citizen complaints against the proponents of automated ticketing.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Tolling Interstate 95 In Virginia, North Carolina Hits Roadblock
Plans to convert Interstate 95 into a toll road in North Carolina and Virginia have run into a roadblock. On Tuesday, the North Carolina House of Representatives will vote on final passage of a measure that would prohibit the state from installing toll booths on existing general purpose lanes. The measure passed on a preliminary vote 113-0 last Thursday.

Monday, May 20, 2013
Baltimore, Maryland Denies Speed Camera Cover Up
Earlier this month, the city of Baltimore, Maryland told the state’s Open Meetings Compliance Board that it was keeping meetings of the city’s speed camera task force secret, in violation of state law. Assistant City Solicitor Hilary Ruley provided screenshots from the Wayback Machine, to show that announcements were placed somewhere on the website at some point for a pair of meetings.

Friday, May 17, 2013
California: City Obsessed With Red-Light Camera Ticket Numbers
California is the largest market for red-light cameras in the country thanks to the fines set by the state running nearly $500 each. Municipalities that adopt the technology are quick to deny any possibility that financial considerations have anything to do with their decisions to monitor local intersections. Internal discussions between the city of Menlo Park and camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems suggest otherwise.

Thursday, May 16, 2013
Maryland: Another City Forced To Refund Illegal Photo Tickets
Hagerstown, Maryland announced Wednesday that it would refund 808 illegally issued speed camera tickets. Brekford Corporation mailed the citations between the end of December and January using three automated ticketing machines that failed to meet the certification requirements of state law.

• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: September 26, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: August 22, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: July 5, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: July 27, 2011
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: November 23, 2011

By Gary Biller, NMA President

The fallout from the National Transportation Safety Board’s call for the legal definition of drunk driving to be lowered from the current 0.08 percent of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) across all 50 states to 0.05 is just beginning.

The New York Times requested the NMA to provide a 300-word rebuttal to the proposal for their “Room for Debate” point-counterpoint online forum. We gladly did so, realizing that a balanced discussion of this heated issue is necessary and critical to the future of driving and drivers’ rights in this country.

We assumed the online debate would be reasonably balanced. I’m not sure why; history has shown this topic to be covered more with emotionalism than balance. When the Times published “Too Drunk to Drive” on May 16th, it consisted of four opinions for the lower BAC limit and just one – the NMA’s – against. Two days earlier, the Times Editorial Board published an op-ed strongly in favor of a 0.05 BAC limit. There was no subtlety there whatsoever.

The Times editor for “Room for Debate” came back to us on three separate pre-publication occasions, each time asking for substantiation of any facts and figures we included. Again, we gladly did so, realizing that too many “experts” throw around talking points without feeling the compulsion to be particularly truthful.

One of the other debaters—Jan Withers, president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD)—was able to claim that “Seventeen states with all-offender ignition interlock laws have reduced D.U.I. fatalities by more than 30 percent . . .” without the need to provide proof of her point. Apparently even the Times won’t mess with MADD.

The objectivity referred to in the title of this blog goes deeper than the typical claims of bias in the mainstream media. A read of the comments posted online by readers of the five “Too Drunk to Drive” op-eds provides a glimpse into why objectivity is losing the war to intransigence. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion—life would be pretty bland otherwise—but the key ingredient of retaining some degree of open-mindedness to help shape one’s beliefs is the concept that is now on life support.

I read alternately in the online comments that the use of statistics in my op-ed ranged anywhere from hogwash to very astute. The same type of diametrically-opposed comments were posted for the other opinions in “Too Drunk to Drive” as well. My sense was that the facts and logic of each op-ed were subordinate to whatever opinion the reader held beforehand.

It is my fervent hope that anyone who has a vested interest in the issue of impaired driving—everyone who drives, rides, bikes, or walks our roadways—takes a deep breath and gives careful thought to the consequences, both intentional and unintentional, of further separating the legal definition from the physiological reality of what constitutes driving while impaired.

There is no arguing that every life lost on our highways is a tragedy. The point we should focus on is where our attention and resources can best be applied to save lives. Considering that the government has noted the average BAC of drivers in a drunk-driving fatality is 0.19 and that 92.5 percent of these drivers had BACs of 0.10 and higher, I wonder why we are so preoccupied with moving closer to a prohibitionist state. The more effective fight for better highway safety is best waged by developing solutions to keep high (0.14 and higher) BAC drivers off of the road.

• Back to the Future
• Martin Swig: Auto Enthusiast, Racer, Supporter of Drivers’ Rights
• A NMA Foundation Driving Tour of Germany
• Should Red-Light Cameras be Legal?
• Watchdogs on the Prowl in New Jersey

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

In a few years, six-speed transmissions will probably seem as dated as Powerglides or threes-on-the-tree do today. Several current model-year cars already have seven and even eight-speed transmissions (Porsche 911, Chrysler 300, BMW 5 Series, etc.).

This is about twice the number of gears the typical automotive transmission boasted as recently as the Clinton Years. When I was a kid, three-speed automatics were common. And the only vehicles with more than five speeds had Kenworth or Mack on their radiator shells.

Well, get ready for the nine-speed box. And after that, the ten speed box. Not for big-rigs. For your next new car.

Or truck.

These new transmissions are being developed by GM and Ford — working in collaboration. “Engineering teams from GM and Ford have already started initial design work,” said Jim Lanzon, GM vice president of global transmission engineering. “We expect these new transmissions to raise the standard of technology, performance and quality for our customers while helping drive fuel economy improvements into both companies’ future product portfolios.”

Italics added.

The latter item — helping drive fuel economy improvements — is of course the key factor driving all this. Tighter gear spacing reduces RPM drop between each gear change as the car accelerates; this in turn improves fuel efficiency. Not stupendously. But these days — and in days to come — every little improvement matters. A lot. Most people know that come 2016, all new cars will have to average 35.5 MPG. But outside of the car business, not many people know about the next round of government fuel-efficiency mandates (CAFE, in the argot of the federal bureaucracy). Come 2025 — which is not all that far down the road — all new cars will have to average 54.5 MPG.

(News story here.)

This is roughly double what the typical new economy car averages today.

Hence, the scramble to develop transmissions that will result in more fuel-efficient engines.

In addition to getting a car up to speed more efficiently, the next-generation transmissions will also help them to cruise much more efficiently. Current year cars already have overdrive transmissions that reduce engine RPM at cruising speeds (in top gear) to not much above a fast idle — around 2,000 RPM or so at about 60 MPH being pretty typical. But if that could be cut down to 1,500 RPM or even less at the same road speed, the car would be even more economical to operate. A given car that’s capable of say 40 MPG on the highway might be capable of 45 MPG at the same road speed, just by cutting the engine RPMs to 1,500 or so from 2,000 or so. But, there’s a problem — with current transmissions. They don’t have enough gears — or rather, the spread between say fourth and overdrive fifth is too much to allow for a “deeper” overdrive (top gear) fifth. The engine would lug — and the car would be uncomfortable to drive. An additional gear to take up the spread between fourth and overdrive fifth (or fifth and overdrive sixth) is needed. Hence the additional gearing. Each one represents a small step forward, but each step is made less abrupt by having many small steps rather than four or five bigger ones.

Wonderful — especially if it helps trucks and SUVs (and larger, RWD cars) survive. Which GM and Ford spokesmen have admitted, albeit somewhat elliptically, is a major motivator egging on the development of these transmissions. It’s one thing — a much easier thing — to get a compact or even mid-sized car with a four-cylinder engine over the 35.5 MPG hump (and within spitting distance of the 54.5 MPG bump). Several are already close. Hybrids are already there. But a 1500 series truck? With a 5-ish liter V-8 engine? The current (2013) Chevy Silverado 1500 regular cab with 2WD and a 4.3 liter V-6 gets 15 city, 20 highway. A 1500 series extended cab with 4WD and a 4.8 liter V-8 comes in at 14 city, 19 highway. The mileage of these kinds of vehicles is going to have to double — literally — within 12 years. And just two model years from now, GM and Ford — and anyone else who wants to sell a traditional truck or SUV or even a car with anything larger than a four under its hood — is going to be facing possibly ruinous government fines for not making the 35.5 MPG cut.

So, these new many-speed transmissions — and any other technology that makes it feasible, from a technology point-of-view, to continue manufacturing other-than-compact-sized cars with other-than-very-small four-cylinder engines is being looked at with the same eager lust that 14-year-old boys used to look at their first copy of Penthouse.

The big downside is, of course, the price tag. These transmissions are not going to be inexpensive. Current seven and eight-speed boxes (found almost exclusively in high-end cars) run as much as three or even four thousand bucks each at the retail level. So if one craps out on you after it’s out of warranty and the car is ten or twelve years old — maybe less — it could be a “throw-away” moment. That moment might come a lot sooner, too, if the car is not a high-end car — which will be the case as these transmissions become commonplace over the next several years.

Then we’ll all find out just how much 35.5 MPG (and 54.5 MPG) cars really cost.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• Goodbye, V-8s – This Time, Maybe For Good
• New Enough
• Fuel Economy: Here’s What We’re Missing
• If We Really Wanted To Save Gas…
• CAFE Spells RIP For Trucks?

California: ACLU sues LAPD and Sheriff’s Department over license plate scanners
Both the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department have become big fans of cameras that capture license plate numbers and check them against information in registration and criminal databases. Authorities tout how the information helps find stolen cars and help solve investigations, but the American Civil Liberties Union has an issue with the police holding onto the plate images of innocent people.

North Carolina: Court costs – where your fine from speeding tickets really goes
Many drivers know it’s the court costs that will really ding you, typically tacking on almost 200 dollars to your initial speeding fine. You may be surprised to learn hardly any of the “court costs” actually make it back to the courts. The vast majority of the court cost money actually goes straight to the state’s general fund.

Florida: Shortened yellow lights lead to more tickets
A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida’s rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red-light camera fines.

Illinois: Proof lacking red-light cameras installed at most dangerous intersections
The Chicago Inspector General’s Office said in an audit summary Tuesday that the Chicago Department of Transportation cannot prove it installed red-light cameras on the city’s most crash-prone intersections as promised. The audit suggests CDOT should implement and follow “clear” criteria for choosing red-light camera placement and keep records on the decisions and basis for each location.

Minnesota: What metro area city tickets speeders more than others?
On average, nearly 120,000 people are ticketed for speeding in the seven-county metro area each year. We spent months crunching the numbers and discovered your chance of getting caught varies greatly from city to city.

New Jersey: Bill would make it easier to reduce speed limits to 15 mph
A bill penned by Burlington County legislator Scott Rudder and Assemblywoman Celeste Riley would require the New Jersey Department of Transportation to reduce the speed limit on qualified local roads from 25 mph to 15 or 20 mph if a community association or majority of the residents in a neighborhood request it. The bill would apply only to access streets within residential neighborhoods where the majority of streets do not have sidewalks.

New Jersey: Coming soon to the skies near you
It sounds like something dreamed up for “The Jetsons” — flying vehicles flitting through the skies, transporting everything from medical devices to Chinese food, no pilot required. But in two years, New Jerseyans may see these airborne robots soaring above them on the Turnpike, a cause of concern for some and a source of wonder for others.

To see more stories like the ones above, check out our NMA Driving News site. Each weekday we update the site with news stories that are interesting and/or informative for drivers like you.

• Driving News Roundup: February 15, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: November 9, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: December 14, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: January 18, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: March 29, 2013

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Cue ’80s-era Queen… another one bites the dust.

Another V-6, that is.

The 2014 Mazda6 — all-new — is now also four-cylinder-only.

The good news is the new “SkyActiv-G” four is stronger than the old four — 184 hp vs. 170 last year. It is also a much peppier performer (0-60 in about 7.5 seconds vs. over 9 last year) in part because the new 6 is about 100 pounds lighter than the old 6. The new four-cylinder-only 6 is also much more fuel efficient: 26 city/38 highway vs 21 city, 30 highway last year.

Even better news: A “SkyActiv-D” 2.2 liter turbo-diesel — and 40-plus MPG — is on deck for the 6 later in the model year. Reportedly, the diesel-powered 6 will also be quicker than the gas-engined 6. Look out, VW Passat TDI.

The bad news is the diesel won’t be available for awhile. Also, there is a gorgeous wagon version of the new 6 that won’t be sold here. It’s an export-market only deal — because Mazda believes not enough Americans are interested in sportwagons.

Sigh.

And no more 272 hp. So, no more low six-second to 60 runs. The formerly available 3.7 liter V-6 was just too thirsty (18 city, 27 highway) for current — and pending — political realities. In two model years (2016) all new cars will have to average 35.5 MPG, courtesy of Uncle Sam’s edicts — or saddle their manufacturers — and thus, buyers — with onerous gas guzzler taxes.

So, sayonara to the V-6.

Still, Mazda has done more than put lipstick on a pig by making the 2014′s four better than last year’s four.

Let’s get into that now.

WHAT IT IS

The 6 is Mazda’s Altima-Fusion-Optima fighter, with the chief difference between it and them being efficient sportiness. It no longer offers a powerful but consumptive V-6 engine, but it does offer a highly fuel-efficient four cylinder engine — with an even more fuel efficient (and sportier) turbo-diesel engine on deck.

Prices for the 2014 model start at $20,880 for the base trim iSport — vs. $21,900 for a base Ford Fusion, $21,760 for the base-model Nissan Altima, $21,680 for a base Honda Accord sedan and $21,200 for the base Kia Optima.

A top-of-the-line i Grand Touring lists for $29,495 — vs. $30,200 for a top-of-the-line Fusion Titanium, $30,560 for a V-6 Altima SL, $33,430 for an Accord Touring w/V-6 and $26,800 for the turbocharged Kia Optima SX (the deal of the bunch).

The pending SkyActiv diesel version of the new 6 will directly challenge the efficiency hegemony of the VW Passat TDI — which lists for $26,225.

At the time of this review, Mazda had not released any details about what the price of a Sky-D equipped 6 might be. If it’s significantly less than the $26k VW is asking for the TDI Passat, it’s going to get very interesting.

WHAT’S NEW

The 2014 Mazda6 is all-new, a complete redesign.

WHAT’S GOOD

Arguably one of the best-looking cars in this class — and for this coin.

Supple, quiet ride.

New four delivers much better power/performance than the old four — and very good gas mileage.

Pending diesel engine will give the 6 better performance — and close to hybrid-car fuel efficiency.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

New four maxxes out at 184 hp — which looks a bit weak relative to several competitors’ available 250-plus hp V-6s (and turbo fours).

SkyActiv diesel engine should be on the menu now — not later.

No wagon for us.

UNDER THE HOOD

As mentioned above, the 2014 6 has lost its formerly optional V-6 and — for the first few months of its life — will be available only with a 2.5 liter gas-burning four. It’s the same size as before, but Mazda has tweaked and tuned it to get 184 hp (and 185 lbs.-ft. of torque) out of it as opposed to 170 hp (and 167 lbs.-ft. of torque) last year.

The object appears to have been to bridge the gap between last year’s too-weak/too-slow base-engined 6 — and the too-thirsty V-6 that was optional but which one almost had to buy because the base four (in the old 6) wasn’t getting it done, performance-wise.

Or even efficiency-wise.

The updated four in the new 6 rates a very solid 26 city/38 highway — and gets the car to 60 in 7.5-7.6 seconds, depending on the transmission: your choice of six speed manual or six-speed automatic. This is a big improvement over the old four-cylinder 6′s glacial 9 second run — and not-so-hot 21 city, 30 highway EPA mileage stats.

It’s also only about a second or so off the pace of last year’s 6 with its optional V-6 — and more important, very competitive with the performance of base-engined versions of cars like the Ford Fusion — which takes more than 9 seconds to reach 60 with its standard-issue 2.5 liter, 175 hp four — or the base-engined Kia Optima, which also needs about 9 seconds to reach 60.

The Sky-G Mazda also beats the base-engined (2.5 liters, 182 hp) Nissan Altima, which takes about 7.8 seconds to get to 60.

In fact, the only competitor that’s as quick as the new 6 in base-engined form is the just-updated Accord, which gets there in the same 7.5 second range (and also rates a very respectable 27 city, 36 highway).

But there will inevitably be comparisons between the power/performance offered by the new 6 — which is after all, a sporty-minded car — and sporty-minded competitors like the Optima and Accord, Altima and Fusion when fitted with their much stronger optional engines . . . which Mazda hasn’t got an answer for at the moment.

The Fusion, for instance, has also nixed its six — it only comes with fours now. But you can upgrade from the gimpy 175 hp engine to a turbo 2.0 engine that makes 240 hp and cuts the 0-60 time down to 6.8-6.9 seconds. So equipped, the Fusion still gets decent gas mileage, too: 22 city, 33 highway.

The Kia Optima can be equipped with a 274 hp turbo 2.0 four that beats the turbo Fusion — and runs circles around the 6 — with a 6.5 second to 60 posting. It also carries a very impressive (given the power/performance) EPA fuel efficiency rating of 22 city, 34 highway.

And models like the Honda Accord and Nissan Altima (and some others, including the Toyota Camry) still offer very potent V-6 engines. In the case of the Accord, a 278 hp 3.5 liter V-6 that rockets this car to 60 in six seconds flat. It’s not a hog, either: EPA says 21 city, 34 highway — which isn’t at all that far behind the Mazda’s 26 city, 38 highway.

But, Mazda’s got a one-up: That 2.2 liter SkyActiv-D turbo-diesel that’s in the works for later in the model year. It will — reportedly — provide better acceleration than the current 2.5 liter gas engine in addition to better fuel economy (more than 40 MPG on the highway and probably 30 or better in city driving).

Unfortunately for Mazda buyers, the Sky-D diesel engine will not be available in the 6 until sometime next calendar year.

That is, 2014.

We’re still only about a third of the way through 2013. The risk Mazda runs is that the newness halo of the “2014″ 6 may have waned by the time we actually get to 2014.

ON THE ROAD

The Sky-G engine is a very torquey, quiet and smooth powerplant. The nearly 20 lbs.-ft. bump in output is particularly relevant insofar as how the car pulls. Not only is there more torque than last year, it’s available almost 800 RPM sooner — at 3,250 revs vs. the old non-Sky-G four’s 167 lbs.-ft at 4,000.

However . . . today’s four cylinder engines have the same issue to overcome that modern diesel engines have had to overcome. The perception issue — based on what these engines were like 20 or 30 years ago. Back then, diesels were slow — and smelly.

They are neither today.

Similarly, wonders have been worked with today’s small-displacement (and non-turbo) gas engines. The Sky-G’s 184 hp out of 2.5 liters is more hp than was being pulled out of bigger sixxes just 10 or 15 years ago — and more than some V-8s were making 25 years ago.

If you were to tele-port a new Mazda6 back to the early Reagan years, you’d find yourself keeping up with Corvettes — no, really — and obliterating the typical family sedans of that era. A mid seven second 0-60 run circa 1983 would have been smiled upon as extremely speedy. And from a car capable of averaging 34.2 MPG (as I did, during my week-long test drive). . . ?

Are you kidding me? Where do I sign up?

So there’s that.

Still, many people regard fours — especially if they’re not turbocharged fours — as fundamentally economy car engines. This is ok if the car is an economy car. But the 6 isn’t primarily — or even secondarily — an economy car. It is primarily a sporty car. People who shop sporty cars expect things to happen when they push down on the gas pedal.

Good gas mileage is desirable, certainly. But it’s not everything. Maybe it is for the government control freaks who keep insisting on ratcheting it ever upward by legislative fiat — and to the exclusion of almost every other consideration. But consumers may have different needs and wants.

This is the crux of the dilemma.

A mid seven seconds to 60 run isn’t slow.

However, is it quick enough? Relative to what the competition offers?

If the 6 still had its optional V-6 (or could be ordered with the pending but not-yet-here turbo-diesel four) the performance uptick achieved by the base four would be hailed as exemplary.

It is certainly no longer necessary to upgrade to get adequate performance — as it arguably was last model year. “Adequate” being defined as guts enough to achieve freeway-matching speed from merge ramps and so forth sufficiently quickly such that you don’t feel as though you’re driving an overloaded Geo Metro.

You will never feel this way driving the new four-cylinder 6.

Unless, of course, you square off against a V-6 Accord or Altima — or the turbo’d versions of the Fusion and Optima.

And therein lies the rub.

If the diesel SkyActiv engine gets the 6 to 60 in seven seconds or close to that — while delivering 40-plus MPG — this rub will be salved. Such performance — and economy — would be very appealing. So why — why — is Mazda sitting on the diesel? It’s a potential war-winner, right up there with the Germans’ WWII-era Arado AR234 jet bomber. Which the idiot Nazis could have mass produced as early as ’43 but which they didn’t get into front-line service until it was already far too late to do them much good.

The diesel dallying makes me angry, because the new 6 is a damn nice car — and deserves to go to the front lines with a full kit.

The ride/handling of this car is just excellent. Plush — and firm. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, I know. But go for a drive. You will find the suspension’s dampening ability phenomenal. Luxury — and sport — in the same car. If the road dips — or a pothole drops a wheel — the driver (and passengers) will hardly know it. Perhaps this is due to the new car’s longer wheelbase — now 111.4 inches vs. 109.8 for the old model. But Mazda deserves credit for doing more than just stretching the chassis. This car modulates itself to accommodate imperfections in the road with impressive subtlety. Yet it does not wallow. The steering isn’t sloppy.

It reminded me of the way Pontiac, back in the day (’70s) set up the Trans-Am to ride well and handle well — vs. its sister car, the Camaro Z28, which also handled well but rode like a military half-track.

And, it’s really quiet. Especially the Sky-G engine. Which is amazing, given it’s a four.There are no sounds of strife, even at high RPM.

The only deficit is you can’t power out of the curves like you used to be able to — when the 6 could be had with 270-plus hp under its hood.

AT THE CURB

The new 6 is a slightly smaller — and lighter — car than before: 2.2 inches shorter overall and about 100 pounds less beefy (3,183 lbs. vs. 3,268 for the ’13). It sits almost 1 full inch lower to the ground, too: 57.1 inches vs. 57.9 last year.

The front clip especially is lithe, sinuous — almost feline in the way it stretches forward over the arched wheelwells — with the arches rising like a an ocean swell from the front door area before they wash over the tires. The much-enlarged grille opening, meanwhile, suggests a lust for airflow — and a need for speed.

It’s a pretty car — a sexy car. No doubt about it.

And a lot more distinctive-looking than the previous 6 — which was more generic “Japanese sedan” than Mazda sedan.

Those are the subjectives. And the objectives?

The elongated wheelbase allowed Mazda to carve out about 3/4 of an inch more rearseat legroom — which stands at 38.7 inches for the 2014 vs. 38 for the ’13.

This is an area where the Mazda absolutely mops the floor with the very appealing Kia Optima — which is otherwise one of the strongest contenders in this segment and arguably, the 6′s closest-in-spirit competition. It has only 34.7 inches of backseat legroom. That’s three full inches less — a big difference. The Optima makes up for this with 45.5 inches of front seat legroom — which is more than any car in this segment by several inches, including the 6 (42.2 inches). But frankly, unless you’re an NBA forward, the Kia’s 45.5 inches up front is an on-paper advantage and more than you’ll ever need to be comfortably situated. I say this as a guy who’s six feet three — which means I’m taller (and longer legged) than 95 percent of the population. If you’re my height or less, you’ll be fine with the 6′s 42.2 inches up front — and your passengers in the second row will be fine, too.

Meanwhile, if you buy the Kia, your backseat passengers will be miserable — unless they’re proportioned like Danny DeVito.

However, all is not sunshine and light. The subtraction of those 2.2 inches of overall length from the 6′s silhouette has had a more meaningful downsizing effect on trunk space — which drops to 14.8 cubes from the old 6′s much more generous 16.6 cubic foot trunk. The new 6′s trunk capacity is less than many of the other cars in this class, including the Fusion (16 cubic feet) the Optima and Camry (15.4 cubic feet each) as well as the VW Passat (15.9 cubic feet).

THE REST

Though the base iSport trim is well-equipped (standard AC and major power options, 17-inch wheel/tire package, LCD driver display, etc.) some stuff that probably ought to be included — like satellite radio/Bluetooth — isn’t. They’re extra-cost. Also, the base car with six-speed manual transmission comes with a smaller LCD display. If you order the optional six-speed automatic (which brings the MSRP up to $22,495) then you get the larger (5.8 inch vs. 3.5 inch) display, Bluetooth/HD stereo and a rearview back-up camera.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Sky-G 6 is a player — but a Sky-D 6 could be a game-changer.

I just wish it were in the game — instead of waiting in the wings.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• 2013 Mazda CX-5 Review
• 2012 Kia Optima Hybrid Review
• 2012 Mazda3 SkyActiv Review
• 2012 Suzuki Kizashi Review
• 2012 Volkswagon Beetle Review

Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Chicago, Illinois Inspector General Rejects Red-Light Camera Justification
There is no evidence that the world’s largest red-light camera program is operated as a safety program, according to a report released Tuesday by the inspector general for the city of Chicago, Illinois. The independent investigation comes as Redflex Traffic Systems continues to operate every aspect of the automated ticketing program despite Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s promise to cut ties with the Australian firm.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Maine: Legislation Would Reverse Toll Road Secrecy
The Maine state legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee on Monday reported a bill that would lift the veil of secrecy from a major toll road project and force private developers to pay for their own feasibility studies. On April 5, 2012 Governor Paul LePage (R) signed a bill ordering the state transportation department to conduct an economic feasibility study of a $2 billion, 220-mile toll road cutting across the state from east to west, connecting the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The new bill repeals that provision.

Monday, May 13, 2013
Ohio Appeals Court Forbids Traffic Stop Over Unpaid Parking Tickets
Since April last year, Dayton, Ohio has been trying to generate millions in additional revenue by towing vehicles said to have unpaid photo enforcement or parking tickets. The city’s policy instructed police to pull over motorists and taking their car away until the alleged debt was paid. To keep a steady stream of $85 citations, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia operates ten red-light cameras and ten speed cameras in Dayton.

Sunday, May 12, 2013
League City, Texas Red-Light Cameras Bagged
Red-light cameras in League City, Texas were covered with bags this week, but not by vigilantes. Australian camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems had no choice but to shut down the devices.

Friday, May 10, 2013
Minnesota City Settles After Cop Uses Mace On Deaf Motorist
A police officer who lashed out at a deaf driver with whom he had difficulty communicating cost St. Paul, Minnesota $93,450 on Wednesday. The city council approved a settlement with Douglas D. Bahl, who had sued over a traffic stop that took place on Friday, November 17, 2006. Bahl is a high school teacher, but he can only express his thoughts fully in American Sign Language.

Thursday, May 09, 2013
Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds A Little Weaving
Police officers who want to stop and interrogate a motorist often claim he “weaved within his lane” as justification. Until now, this common pretext has generally been upheld by the judges around the country. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, expressed its doubt on Friday.

• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 13, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 20, 2013
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: August 22, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: March 21, 2012
• TheNewspaper.com Roundup: February 13, 2013

Investigative reporter Noah Pransky of Tampa Bay TV station WTSP filed an explosive report earlier this week about the intentional shortening of yellow-light intervals at red-light camera intersections for the purpose of raising ticket revenue. Pransky noted that of the more than $120 million of photo ticket revenue collected across Florida in 2012, $50 million was directly attributable to red-light camera program operators setting yellow lights too short.

That is a startling number, particularly for those who aren’t familiar with the multitude of documented accounts of short yellow lights that the NMA has gathered over the years. More alarming still is that the combination of red-light cameras and improper yellow-light timing creates the dubious double penalty of inflating ticket revenue while simultaneously making intersections less safe.

A common counter claim against lengthening yellow-light cycles is that drivers will eventually adjust to the conditions and go back to their supposed natural instincts of playing “let’s beat the light.” Both Florida State Senator Jeff Clemens and Charles Territo, chief propagandist of camera vendor American Traffic Solutions, voice this in Pransky’s report.

That is not an uncommon position for pro-camera legislators and camera company employees to make. Some of the public jump on that bandwagon because it makes intuitive sense to them that motorists can’t help but push the margins, whether it be ignoring the speed limit or following an urge to zip through intersections at the first sign of a yellow light, safety be damned.

This view of kamikaze drivers is not only intuitively incorrect, it is factually wrong. Several studies have shown this:

“The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T + 0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase.”

The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response, Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal (November 1980)

“Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the

yellow.”

Determining Vehicle Change Intervals – A Proposed Recommended Practice,Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985)

“Drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration.”

Effect of Yellow-Interval Timing on Red-Light-Violation Frequency at Urban Intersections, Bonneson/Zimmerman, Texas Transportation Institute (January 2004)

Several communities, from Gwinnett County, Georgia, to Loma Linda, California, and places in-between, have put this to the test by analyzing intersection safety statistics in the months and years after lengthening their yellow lights by 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. Violation rates typically plummet 50 to 90 percent almost immediately, and have been shown to remain at those low levels years after the fact.

If you hear a state legislator or city official trying to justify the use of short yellow lights in conjunction with a red-light camera program on the basis of “it doesn’t matter, drivers can’t help themselves,” don’t let them get away with it. Your fellow drivers and your wallet will thank you.

• Help Us Stop Short Yellow Lights
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• How To Turn A Red Light Camera Into A Cash Machine In Three Easy Steps
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

There is an interesting species of near muscle car that came into being and briefly existed for a handful of years, beginning in the early 1970s — just as the high tide of the real muscle car was receding. These were cars that did not come with high-powered V-8s from the factory. But which did come with V-8s that could very easily be made high-powered. The rest was already covered. They had the necessary foundations: rear-wheel-drive layout, sporty two-door styling. And they often had advantages many of the factory muscle cars of the ’60s did not, including low curb weight — and a low price tag.

They were “do-it-yourself muscle cars” — just add horsepower.

One of these was the Grabber version of Ford’s Maverick. It existed for five short years, from 1970 through 1975. It was supposed to be merely an appearance package, but soon came to be more than that. The package appeared about halfway through the Maverick’s first full year in production in Dec. 1970 and included:

* Five Grabbber-specific colors: Brite Yellow, Grabber Yellow, Grabber Green, Grabber Blue and Thanks Vermillion (later color choices would include Freudian Gilt, Anti-Establishment Mint, Original Cinnamon and Hulla Blue).

* Special “Grabber” side stripes and decals, blacked-out grille and rear valance panel, dual sport mirrors.

* Trunk mounted spoiler.

* Chrome drip moldings and door frames.

* “Dual dome” hood with dummy scoops (1970-72 models).

* Bench or bucket seats, trimmed in either Ruffino vinyl or Manston cloth (1972).

* 14 inch wheels with special trim rings.

This was in addition to neat Maverick features such as the “flipper type” rear vent windows, which could be opened outward to draw air into the car. “Select Aire” AC could be ordered, but the car’s effective ventilation system made this unnecessary.

Standard under the Grabber’s dual-dome scooped hood was the base Maverick’s 105 hp 170 CID straight six, with two larger (200 and 250 CID) sixes available as step-up options. But buyers in search of a muscle car in the rough checked off the option box for the 302 V-8, which, became available shortly after the Maverick’s launch.

It was not a Boss 302 — or even a four barrel 302 — but it was a V-8 and even better, it was a 302 V-8. The same basic V-8 that had made big power in other Ford vehicles and which only required a dusting with various factory and aftermarket performance parts to rise from its slumber. It had the potential to be a screamer — especially in a car that only weighed 2,786 lbs. — a flyweight even by early ’70s standards. (For some perspective, the “compact” 1970 Chevy Nova SS weighed about 3,200 lbs.)

The little V-8 was factory rated at 210 hp (SAE gross) in 1970 — or about 100 hp less than the output of a healthy 302. Part of the reason for the modest output was the extremely mild camshaft — a stick designed to deliver good low-speed torque for A to B driving. It was further choked-down by its economy-intended two-barrel carburetor and a very restrictive single exhaust system. Restrictive, not because of catalytic converters — these would not be an issue until 1975 — but rather because the super-tight packaging of the Maverick did not allow for factory dual exhausts or even a decent-diameter single exhaust system.

The Grabber’s 302 left the factory constipated — but this proved to be a blessing in disguise.

As far as the government — and insurance companies — were concerned, this was an economy car. Not a performance car. It could, therefore, slip under the radar. It was cheap to buy — and even more important, it was cheap to insure — unlike an out-of-the-closet muscle car. And once the keys were in your hands — and the car in your garage . . . . A weekend and a few hundred bucks later could — and often did — transform the 302 into a ferocious performer. And no one except you — and those you smacked down on the street — would ever be the wiser.

Even without changing cams, simply swapping out the stock two-barrel intake and carb for a four-barrel intake and carb, diddling the ignition timing to more performance-favorable calibrations — and installing what was known back in the day as a “bang plate” (shift kit) in the three-speed automatic (most of these cars came through with automatics) really woke the thing up. I can vouch for this personally, having helped so modify a ’73 Grabber this way. We also managed to install a proper dual exhaust system — it takes some work, but it is doable — and changed out the economy-minded ring and pinion for a more aggressive set. The effect of these tweaks was like jumper cables on your nipples in January. The otherwise stock 302 — never opened up, with its factory low-performance camshaft in place — easily barked the tires on both the 1-2 upshift and the 2-3 upshift at WOT.

Remember, this car only weighed about 2,800 pounds.

A new (2013) Mustang GT weighs 3,622 lbs. — 800 pounds more.

A new Mustang GT also costs $30,750 — vs. $1,995 for the base 1970 Maverick, plus another $194 for the Grabber package. Add the V-8 and you were maybe up to $2,500 or so in early 1970s dollars — about $14,000 in 2013 dollars. Imagine being able to buy a RWD car with a V-8 engine for that kind of money. Not used.

Brand-new.

This was part of the Maverick’s genius. It was incredibly affordable, yet it wasn’t a bottom feeding basic transpo unit like many of its competitors, especially those from Japan. You could get a V-8, after all. You could also get AC. And in addition to the Grabber package, there were almost as many a la carte options for individualization of each car as the 1964 Mustang had offered. In fact, the man responsible for the ’64 Mustang was trying to recreate history by reviving the same basic idea — fun, affordable, personal — behind the ’64 Mustang. In 1969, then-Ford Vice President Lee Iaccoca told Time magazine: “You dumb foot draggers — you in Detroit — what took you so long to know imports were going to hit a million? Now the market is damn well defined, and you know what the market says? ‘Give me a hell of a good buy for two grand, will you? ‘ ”

Thus was born Ford’s answer to the imports — among them, VW’s hot-selling Beetle.

But like the four-cylinder econo-boxes from Japan, the four-cylinder-only Beetle could never even dream of being a muscle car, while the Maverick — in Grabber trim — could be one with just a little bit of work, most of it backyard mechanic doable with basic hand tools.

There were only two really significant issues with the Maverick, from the standpoint of high-performance. First, there was no limited slip differential option — and the most aggressive factory gearing was 3.08 (most Grabbers came through with a burnout-unfriendly 2.79 ring and pinion). Second, while a manual transmission was available, it was only a three-speed manual. If you wanted a factory four-speed car, you had to move up to a Mustang.

And there were incidentals — such as the absence of a factory-available tachometer or “rally” gauge cluster. You got a speedo, fuel gauge and a few idiot lights.

Even so, the Grabber was still a low-bucks way to get into a brand-new RWD/V-8 performance car — or at least, a RWD car with a V-8 that could be made into a performance car. Even by 1974, with inflation eating away at everything — by causing the prices of everything to rise — the Maverick’s base price was still just $2,591. With the Grabber equipment, the V-8 and AC, the out-the-door price was in the neighborhood of $3,400 — just under $16k today.

Not everyone could afford a GTO — or a Mustang. As much then — as now. Cars like the Maverick Grabber gave buyers who wanted something more than an import econo-box but which was still priced about the same a real alternative. Something they could work with.

In 1973, the Maverick lost its dual-dome scooped hood — but since the scoops had never been functional anyhow, there was no loss in performance. What did hurt the Grabber’s performance was creeping curb weight — up to 2,957 lbs. by ’75. The additional beef was seen as well as felt. The 1970 model’s aesthetically appropriate thin-line bumpers (available with twin vertical bumperettes) were replaced — also in ’73 — with a set of massive-in-comparison “energy absorbing” bumpers easily three times their size.

And, their weight.

All the cars of the period were similarly afflicted — and if you wanted to identify the moment in time when external forces (the government and insurance mafia) were consolidating their death grip on the American car industry — the moment at which these forces and not consumers would determine what kinds of cars would be allowed on the market — it was the dread year 1973. “Unilock” seatbelt buzzers and ignition interlocks were mandatory standard equipment — and catalytic converters were less than 24 months down the road. The buzzers would go away for awhile — then return to afflict all new cars to this very day. Catalytic converters, of course, never went away. We just got more of them (most new cars have at least two and many have four or more).

Simple, affordable cars were on the way out. Simple, affordable RWD cars with V-8 engines were soon to be rendered extinct forever.

Ford discontinued the Grabber package after the ’75 model year. The Maverick would live on for another two years. During these final two seasons, Ford gamely tried to keep the idea alive. A Stallion package that offered many of the erstwhile Grabber features appeared — very briefly — in 1976. It also had a sporty exterior/interior — and could be ordered with the 302 V-8 as well as Lacy Spoke aluminum wheels — which had never been available with the Grabber. But by ’77, the gig was up. Maverick was cancelled — and both the Grabber and the Stallion were automotive history.

The Maverick Grabber and Stallion (as well as their Mercury Comet equivalents) and a number of other almost muscle cars built during the early-mid 1970s like the Oldsmobile Rallye 350, the “Heavy Chevy” Chevelle, the Buick Apollo, the Dodge Aspen R/T, etc., are today perhaps the only not-yet-mined repositories of affordable old-school RWD/V-8 performance.

Cars of a type that will probably never be made again.

You can still pick up a nice one for under $5,000 or so.

Good luck finding a factory-built muscle car — that still runs or with a body not Swiss-cheesed by rust — for anything near that.

Nearly four decades after the last one left the line, the Grabber’s appeal continues to increase. As they were when they were new, these cars are a performance bargain — and potential wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Comments?

www.epautos.com

• Retro Review: De Tomaso Pantera, 1971-1993
• Catalytic Converter Snatching
• The No Longer Necessary V-8
• Why Muscle Cars – The Old Ones – Still Rule
• 2015 Mustang… Probe Revisited?

Florida: Red-light camera fines may go up to $408 and be harder to fight under new rules
A bill that cleared the House and Senate in the final days of the legislative session vastly increases the power of local governments to issue red-light camera violations. It discourages people accused of running red lights from challenging their ticket by increasing their fine from $158 to $408 should they contest and lose.

Illinois: Sheriffs seem OK with raising interstate speed limit
Although a state transportation official opposes a proposal to raise the speed limit on rural interstate highways to 70 mph, most county sheriffs apparently aren’t opposed to the increase. In April, the Illinois Senate voted 41-6 for that change from 65 mph. The measure is Senate Bill 2356.

Germany: Not so fast: Merkel challenger seeks to cut off debate on speed limit for all German autobahns
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s challenger in September’s election is trying to avoid a political speed bump. Peer Steinbrueck is trying to halt a debate set off by a Social Democrat colleague about whether to introduce speed limits on all German highways — a potential turnoff for voters. Stretches of Germany’s autobahns have no speed limit, traditionally a cherished freedom.

California: Murrieta red-light camera program shut down
To hearty applause from the audience in a packed City Council chamber, City Council members voted on Tuesday, May 7, 4-0 to end the red-light camera program. In doing so, council members are requesting American Traffic Solutions to remove the cameras and all associated equipment. Additionally, council members said they planned to consider proposals from the public to extend the time a traffic light stays yellow before turning red.

U.K.: 20mph speed limits backed by World Health Organisation
The Pedestrian Safety report summarises published research on the science of road safety and uses a case study of Lancashire’s 20mph limits. It stated that ‘one of the most effective ways to improve pedestrian safety is to reduce the speed of vehicles’ with ‘area-wide lower speed limit programmes’ being a proven intervention.

Nebraska: Supreme Court upholds a little weaving
Police officers who want to stop and interrogate a motorist often claim he “weaved within his lane” as justification. Until now, this common pretext has generally been upheld by the judges around the country. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, expressed its doubt on Friday.

Illinois: 70 mph speed limit clears House committee
Legislation that would raise the speed limit on interstate highways in most sections of downstate Illinois to 70 mph advanced through the House Transportation Committee Wednesday, 8-0. The bill, SB 2356, now moves to the full House for its consideration. It already passed the Senate, 41-6, in April.

To see more stories like the ones above, check out our NMA Driving News site. Each weekday we update the site with news stories that are interesting and/or informative for drivers like you.

• Driving News Roundup: March 9, 2012
• Driving News Roundup: February 22, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: April 26, 2013
• Driving News Roundup: November 11, 2011
• Driving News Roundup: March 8, 2013