Relegated to a small part in the mid-size sedan category, Nissan schemed to break into the best-selling gang of four (the pair mentioned above plus the Chevrolet Impala and Malibu).

It introduced the stylish Altima in 1993, winning over fans but not enough to catch up with the sales leaders, which kept getting larger and consequently more popular.

Nissan finally resigned itself to starting with a blank AutoCAD screen and re-designing its family sedan from the tires up.

CONFIGURATION

Re-launched for 2002, Nissan’s second-fiddle sedan turned out slightly larger than its flagship Maxima, with a body 14 cm longer and a wheelbase 18 cm greater than the previous-generation Altima.

It had a size advantage – longer, taller, roomier and slightly wider than the Camry and Accord – and looked leading-man handsome, too.

Assembled in Tennessee, it was the first Nissan there to benefit from the structural rigidity of a one-piece body-side component framing the doors. The stout unibody (170 per cent stiffer than the old one) promised better handing and ride characteristics.

Helping in that department was a new strut front suspension, a multilink rear suspension based on the racy Japanese Skyline model, and generous wheel and tire packages. All Altimas got disc brakes at all four corners.

Motivating the Altima was an all-new engine: an aluminum DOHC 2.5-L four cylinder complete with continuously variable valve timing and balance shafts to neutralize the shakes endemic to large four bangers. It was good for 175 hp.

Optional was the same VQ-series 3.5-L V6 found in the Maxima and a host of other Nissans, but downgraded to 240 hp so as not to overshadow the 260-hp Maxima.

Still, there was more than enough power to embarrass the V6-powered Camry and Accord of the day. All Altimas could be ordered with either a manual or automatic transmission.

Inside the expansive cabin occupants were treated to a fashionable cockpit, though owners noted the hard plastic surfaces scratched easily and tended to squeak and creak with age.

“The combination of mouse-fur seats and Tupperware plastics was a huge letdown,” blogged the owner of an ’03 model.

The car’s fetching good looks and favourable pricing goosed sales, making the Altima Nissan’s best-selling car and fourth best-selling auto in America – right on target. Auto scribes anointed it North American Car of the Year for 2002.

Not a whole lot changed for the Altima in subsequent years.

For 2005 Nissan offered a sporty SE-R model that made use of the Maxima’s 260-hp V6 along with a six-speed manual transmission, 18-inch forged aluminum wheels, 45-series tires and suspension upgrades to get the slightly enhanced power to the ground.

All V6s that year upgraded to a five-speed automatic while the four cylinders remained shackled to the four-speed autobox. All models got revised interior trim.

The breakthrough Altima was replaced by an evolutionary fourth-generation model for 2007.

ON THE ROAD

Not only did the 2002 Altima look unbland, the V6 model largely delivered an unboring performance.

The Altima 3.5 SE sprinted to 96 km/h in 7.3 seconds (with the automatic), carved out 0.81 g of grip on a skidpad and hauled down to a standstill from 112 km/h in 59 metres.

All pretty good numbers in 2002 – before the Accord and Camry got their horsepower injections.

Where the Altima fell down was in its apparent lack of refinement.

Torque steer was prevalent, the SE’s ride was firm bordering on jarring, and shifting the manual transmission was clunky and unsatisfying. Owners disliked the car’s wide turning radius, too.

That manual gearbox reduced the acceleration time to 5.9 seconds, however. The four-cylinder Altima was considerably slower, but still provided acceptable acceleration and decent fuel economy to boot.

The SE-R was more show than go, unfortunately. It was 0.2 seconds slower to highway velocity than the 3.5 SE, though it clung to the asphalt better (0.86 g) and came to a stop in just 51 metres (from 112 km/h).

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

Star-struck by the Altima’s appealing redesign, drivers lined up to get one.

“Show me another car out there that I can buy for $25,000 that combines performance, space, reliability and looks and I’ll buy it,” wrote the owner of a 2004 model.

But it lost some of its lustre as the kilometres racked up. Owners complained about faulty radiators, head gaskets and oxygen sensors, prematurely worn struts and starting problems.

The no-start condition was traced back to bad crank position sensors, a recall item.

But as owners approached the 120,000-km mark, some were in store for something worse: complete engine failure.

“The catalytic converter had come apart and the sand-like material in it had sucked back up into the motor and ate the piston rings and walls.”

This diagnosis, given to the owner of a four-cylinder 2002 model, would be repeated often.

The pre-catalytic converter built into the exhaust manifold would reportedly disintegrate, causing increased oil and coolant consumption and, eventually, engine breakdown.

Some engine replacements were covered under warranty; owners of high-mileage examples paid the $5,500 cost out of pocket. There’s a Transport Canada recall (no. 2003060) on the catalytic converter but the dealer is under no obligation to replace the engine.

This problem mainly afflicts 2002 and 2003 four-cylinder Altimas (the V6 cars are not affected).

Coincidentally, used Altimas are relatively inexpensive and plentiful. Shop with care.

Showing mark the cutline

all the innovation and technological advancement North America is known for we often cater to the lowest common denominator. Companies seeking to put their product in as many hands as quickly as possible scale back the “awesome” to just “pretty good” and release it to the masses.

In automobilia you need not look further than the plethora of concept cars that grace the spinning stages at every auto show. Many of the features in these one-off proof of concept vehicles don’t see the light of day due to regulations but many of the technological advancements don’t make it into production simply because we wouldn’t be willing to pay for it or we’re just not at a place where our realm of reality is ready to accept it.

This idea – that beneficial technology needs to be proven and not just great out of the box – was made clear to me in the early 1990s when I was telling a friend about e-mail.

“There’s no way Canada Post is going to let you send an e-mail to someone half-way around the world in seconds,” she said.

She was partly right, Canada Post wasn’t letting me do it, it was (at the time) small Internet companies run by a handful of forward-thinking people who wanted tomorrow today.

Recently Mercedes-Benz held an event in Stuttgart, Germany, home of one of their large complexes and an epicenter of engineering and research. They were showing off a couple of new engines, an R&D facility and autonomous driving system. It was easy to marvel at the lengths M-B goes to in order to produce high-quality end products but it was just as easy to be jealous of the technological innovations that won’t be hitting North American shores any time soon.

Stop Start Technology

If you have ever driven in a hybrid or a Porsche Panamera then you may be familiar with stop start technology. It’s a simple concept: when the car comes to a stop, at a stop light, for example, the engine shuts off. When the driver releases the break the engine starts up again.

Mercedes-Benz says this can lead to a fuel savings of up to 20 per cent and they’re putting it in their vehicles with internal combustion engines.

What makes this specifically interesting is what M-B’s engineers have done to make the process faster. Of the two engines being shown off in Stuttgart (a V-6 and a V-8), the V-6 incorporates an innovative piezo direct fuel injector that knows which piston needs to be filled with gas in order to get the engine started again as quickly as possible.

Sounds like a great idea, right? So why don’t we have even version 1.0 in Canada?

Dr. Leopold Miculic, vice-president of engine development, who oversaw the development of this technology was delicate but very clear about the reason this won’t be reaching our shores in the near future.

“There’s a technical point where the North American customer is very specific about what response they want from their engines,” he said.

Basically, we’re too impatient and red lights and stop signs to wait the half-second for our engines to start back up.

Unfortunately he’s not far from the truth. An auto journalist who had been testing the Porsche Panamera for a week said he would sometimes turn the feature off as it kind of got annoying (read: he was in a hurry).

Admittedly, Miculic did say this technology would reach the North American market eventually; it won’t be enabled by default. Instead the driver would have to select it by hitting an “Economy Drive” button or something of the like. In addition, the technology that allows the engine to start up even faster than normal won’t be a part of the picture.

North America’s fuel quality across the continent is horrifically inconsistent. The sulphur content is just too high, especially in the mid-western United States. If this improves then we’ll get the new tech too.

The motivation to clean up our fuel should be on, too. The piezo direct fuel injection process uses about 10 per cent less fuel than previous versions. If Mercedes-Benz is doing it, it would be long for other manufacturers to copy the process but they won’t be able to until our fuel gets cleaner.

Engine Testing

Just outside of Stuttgart is a city called Sindlefingen. It’s home to a Mercedes-Benz facility dedicated to putting new engines through their paces. M-B isn’t convinced the internal combustion engine is going the way of the Dodo so inside one of their engine testing facilities their new V-6 and V-8 engines are being put through the paces.

One particular building is several floors tall with the middle hollowed out. Mercedes-Benz loads the equivalent of a shipping container with the guts of a car — the engine, transmission and exhaust manifold — and a giant crane loads as many as 35 of these into the building. Once loaded, each engine is run through a real world simulation with each engine experiencing a tiny variant. Technicians collect the data and load it onto a server so M-B engineers can study the results.

In one particular test, one of their next-gen engines was being run at 230.5 kilometres an hour for five minutes and then returned to idle only to be ramped back up again. The exhaust manifold was so hot is was glowing bright red.

Hans J. Knemeyer, manager test bench at the facility has a grin from ear to ear as he shows off the lengths gone to for the sake of better engineering. Germany is as excited about engineering as Canadians are about hockey and this single facility is their ice palace.

“The engines are powered from a central fuel system,” Knemeyer says. “Their are five tanks in the ground and it can serve up to 13 different fuel types. The tests run in 30 minute cycles and each engine will receive 50 hours of testing.”

This is how Mercedes-Benz finds out how their engines will react in the real world. If a component is going to fail on the road they’re going to find out here first, if there is a more efficient way to run an engine at idle, this testing will reveal it.

“This (facility) is purely about engineering,” he says. “We just want to get data, lots of data and provide it to the engineers.”

This facility runs seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The night shift’s responsibility is to ensure the tests are running smoothly but the rest of time different variances are being plugged into computers that control the engines. Each engine being tested is matched to the actual transmission and exhaust system that it would be fit with in an actual car.

As we leave the facility the engine inside the testing room starts to ramp up again. The loud hum levels off as it reaches 230.5 kilometres per hour. Here comes the data.

Autonomous Driving

Furniture and toy manufacturers have been using robots for decades to test the durability of parts or how much pressure joints and pieces can withstand before breaking. It’s fairly normal to see a demonstration of this in any IKEA where an arm is pushing down on a chair or opening and closing kitchen drawers in the exact same way over and over again.

Testing cars has been a different story. In most cases it’s a human being that gets behind the wheel of a car and puts the vehicles through a series of acceleration and braking tests. They weave it between a series of pylons and make abrupt lane changes. Crash testing of course has long been automated but that’s the extent in the automotive world.

Mercedes-Benz figured this wasn’t good enough. The problem: humans can’t possibly recreate the exact same condition over and over again. Plus, with some of the tests M-B wanted to run, it wouldn’t be entirely safe for a human to be behind the wheel.

Overlooking a large asphalt pad is a two-storey control tower plugging data into computers that will be relayed to two vehicles parked at opposite ends of the pad. A timer counts down from 10. Car one springs to life makes its way down to the far end of the pad, as car two begins to accelerate. Car one turns around heading towards the north/south lanes of an intersection painted in the middle of the pad while car two continually accelerates towards the east/west.

They miss by maybe a foot.

This will happen a hundred more times with minor variances and the cars will follow the same path deviating no more than 3 cm.

The cars are being driven by robots: one controlling the steering, another the brake and another the accelerator. A GPS unit atop the car that uses both satellites in the sky and a local transmitter on the ground allows the technicians to put the cars through the routes each time with the confidence it will happen exactly as they say.

Mercedes-Benz is doing this to find out more about their vehicles. For example, when does an airbag deploy? Suppose your car drives into a ditch – if the airbag deploys right away and your car continues moving forward you won’t be able to control it and if the vehicle ends up hitting a tree the airbag has already deployed and will do you no good when it really should have.

They’ve tested how sensors react when a car suddenly cuts in front of you are in (as we witnessed) intersection scenarios all with finite accuracy and without putting human life in danger. The data is studied by M-B engineers and vehicles are fine-tuned based on the results.

“We are the only ones doing this right now,” a Mercedes-Benz representative says. “But we hope other manufacturers start following suit.”

Kia erred on the side of caution and bulked up its first North American-spec minivan to ensure it earned the ‘five-star’ crash rating so coveted by consumers.

At an asphalt-crushing 2.2 metric tonnes, this “minivan” is no flyweight. It’s up there with many sport-utility trucks in terms of its mass and propensity to drink deeply at the gas pump.

You know bloggers are mad when they use lots of exclamation marks and all caps: “EXTREMELY poor gas mileage,” wrote a Sedona driver. “I’m getting 16 miles per gallon (18 litres/100 km).”

Owners also got a lesson in reliability issues – a topic some auto reviewers sidestepped when they wrote about the new Sedona five years ago.

CONFIGURATION

The front-drive Sedona arrived in the fall of 2001 as an ’02 model. It came only as a dual-sliding-door model sized halfway between the short- and long-wheelbase versions of the Dodge Caravan.

As a subsidiary of Hyundai, Kia had the Korean success formula down pat: fill the base model with premium features including dual-zone air conditioning and loads of power-assisted goodies as standard equipment.

With the factory on the other side of the planet, it made economic sense to minimize model choices, so there were only two: the base LX and the premium EX, which added leather, ABS brakes, sunroof and even more toys.

Similarly, there’s only one do-it-all engine, supplied by Hyundai. The DOHC 3.5-litre V6 put out 195 hp and 218 lb-ft of torque, hooked up to a class-leading five-speed automatic transmission.

Minivans are fairly uniform in design, so shoppers tend to scrutinize the cabin for features and livability.

Here the Sedona scored well, with lots of storage cubbies and second- and third-row chairs that slid fore-and-aft for flexible room. The LX used a middle bench seat, while the EX featured captain’s chairs.

Unfortunately, the sliding seats cut into the small cargo compartment, making the van less practical than you might think.

“I can’t fit all my groceries in the back cargo space,” complained one owner.

For more load capacity, the split third-row bench folded forward, rather than disappeared into the floor. Alternatively, he-man owners could clean-jerk the heavy seats out of the van.

The Sedona benefited from minor tweaks in subsequent years.

In 2004 it wore a new chrome grill, and in 2005, the rear drum brakes grew larger for better performance and durability.

The Sedona was replaced for 2007 with an entirely new minivan that, significantly, weighs almost 200 kg less than the outgoing model.

ON THE ROAD

Thanks to its portly profile, the Sedona was a leisurely cruiser, taking 10.5 seconds to reach 96 km/h from a standstill (by comparison, a Honda Odyssey can do it in about 8 seconds).

But in other ways, the excess weight works in the van’s favour. The ride is well-controlled, though not the least bit athletic. The van leans in corners like a first-time sea cadet.

The steering feels a little light, but delivers good path control. It tracks nicely down the highway, unfazed by crosswinds and expansion joints.

The emphasis here is on comfort, which it delivers in spades. Noise levels are quite low, thanks in part to the heavy metal, insulation and the refined engine working under the hood.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

When new, the Sedona seduced shoppers with its high-value content, five-star crash rating and comprehensive warranty – engineered to take the fear of buying an unknown brand.

“I have to tell you the warranty was the number-one reason we purchased the van,” one owner confessed in an e-mail. “Kia definitely did surprise me with the fit and finish and the overall quality of the product.”

Some owners have been rewarded with a comfy, good-looking minivan that has served them well. Other owners told a different story.

“We didn’t expect it to perform like a Honda, but we were hoping for at least (Ford) Windstar quality. We got Yugo!” expressed one dismayed owner.

“We bought the vehicle for $25,000 and had $13,000 in warranty work done,” posted another on the net.

The most frequent reported problem involved the air conditioner. It’s not hard to find owners who have had theirs repaired more than once in one summer.

When one owner returned his 2003 Sedona to the dealer to fix the air conditioner, he was told a stone had punctured the condenser and the warranty would not cover it. He paid out of pocket and – not having seen the wounded part – now wonders about the mysterious stone.

Other common gripes centre on faulty transmissions (watch for slippage or hard shifts), fluid leaks, and short-lived alternators and dead batteries.

Here’s a topic we rarely discuss: rust. The Sedona has a problem with the tailgate, which can rust prematurely above the license plate.

Another complaint unique to the Sedona is frequent stress cracks in the windshield along its base. In some instances, owners report, dealers determined the cause as stone impacts (sound familiar?) and disallowed warranty claims.

Other dealers sheepishly admitted the cracks were caused by the wires embedded in the glass to heat the wipers and replaced the windshields under warranty.

It’s important to note that the inaugural 2002 Sedona models generated the bulk of owners’ complaints. Presumably, Kia worked hard to address many of the problems in subsequent model years.

Regardless, shop carefully. Kia resides in the basement of the J.D. Power and Associates dependability surveys and it’s got a long way to go to climb out.

Somehow it’s hard to picture a 65-year-old driver (Lincoln owners’ median age) applying bleach on his tires and doing donuts in a parking lot on a Friday night.

Virtual proof that Lincoln has managed to reach a new, younger demographic with its LS sedan.

Launched in 1999 as a 2000 model, its mission was to lure baby-boomers into Lincoln showrooms with the promise of import-like refinement and sporting pretensions. It even went so far as to offer a manual transmission, the first in a Lincoln since 1951.

Ford’s engineers don’t readily admit it, but the BMW 5 Series made a handy template for the LS, with dimensions and weights that are within spitting distance of each other.

Likewise, the V6 and V8 engines powered the rear tires, not the front, in a nod to the god of excessive wheelspin. Blessed are the bleach makers.

CONFIGURATION

To help diffuse development costs, the LS was built on an all-new platform with which Ford used to underpin the Jaguar S-Type. Both cars were four-door sedans exclusively.

Buyers could choose from a reworked 3.0-litre DOHC V6 taken from the lunch-bucket Taurus or a 3.9-litre DOHC V8 borrowed from Jaguar.

The V8 was actually a detuned version with different cylinder heads and a displacement reduction from 4.0 litres, so as not too upstage the premium Brit brand. In the Lincoln, the V8 produced 252 healthy horses, while the pumped-up V6 made 210.

Buyers of the V6 could choose between the aforementioned Getrag five-speed manual or five-speed automatic transmission. Drivers of the V8 could only get the autobox, with the added feature of ‘manumatic’ shifting (optional on the V6 automatic).

To help keep weight down, Ford specified the control arms, hood, front fenders and trunk lid all be fabricated from aluminum. To approximate ideal 50/50-weight distribution front to rear, Lincoln used an old hot-rodder’s trick and relocated the battery in the trunk.

Inside, the cabin was a little snug but well appointed. Unlike other Lincolns with their broad instrument panels, this one was designed for the driver’s viewing only. Curious passengers needn’t try to peek at the speedo.

“I consistently drive at between 80 and 120 (mph) and my wife, who is somewhat tolerant, has noted that the car feels very good at those speeds,” boasted a driver on the web.

One nice touch was the 60/40 folding seatback, which expanded cargo options as needed. Unfortunately, the trunk was small for a Lincoln – given that its bigger brethren are the airport-limousine standard.

The LS got a mid-generation refreshing for 2003, with styling tweaks that included updated facades front and rear, and cool nickel-look trim inside. Power-adjustable pedals became standard.

More significantly, variable-valve timing was added to both engines, boosting peak horsepower to 280 in the V8 and 232 in the Taurus-derived V6. A five-speed autobox was the only transmission.

ON THE ROAD

In V6 form, the LS was a polite tourer with uncommonly good road manners. The sedan hits highway speed in 8.0 seconds (almost 9 with the automatic), which is competent but nowhere near the sport sedan standard.

But with its independent rear suspension and wide track, the LS is surprisingly adept at carving its own path on the tarmac. It can generate 0.84 g of grip on a circular skidpad, besting the BMW 330i, and exhibits excellent balance and neutral steering.

“The car will enter a relatively stable four-wheel drift condition long after many vehicles would have lost control and broken loose on either the front or rear wheels,” one owner posted.

For envy-inducing peel-outs, the V8-powered LS comes recommended. The extra-strength 2003 model could hit 96 km/h in just 6.5 seconds. The down side is lousy fuel economy, with city mileage as low as 14 mpg (20 litres/100 km), owners reported.

Published comparison tests with other sports sedans usually ranked the LS at the back of the pack. Magazine editors singled out two problems with the car’s manners: unpleasant brake feel (particularly during heavy use) and an overly firm ride with the Sport suspension.

Unflattering things were also said of the five-speed autobox, which was reticent to downshift at the right moments.

“Hot-rod Lincoln was more fun as a pop tune,” mused an editor.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

“Well-balanced” is the most-oft mentioned attribute of the LS. Owners appreciated the care taken in engineering this German-baiting sedan.

“It’s an incredibly comfortable, quiet touring car that can be driven quite quickly,” concluded one owner, who called it a great rain car. Another noted that the switchable traction control made the rear-drive car sure-footed in snowy conditions.

Beyond the good road manners and creature comforts, however, the Michigan-built LS also exhibited a fair number of mechanical problems.

Reported weaknesses include faulty air conditioning and heated driver’s seat, broken window regulators, air-flow regulators and traction control, as well as assorted electrical glitches. Moisture in the headlight assembly was a common complaint.

A number of owners griped about vibration at speed, which some traced back to the car’s standard Firestone tires – an unusual choice for a premium sports sedan.

Overall, the LS represents a skilled attempt by Ford at building an Autobahn speedwagon utilizing its trans-Atlantic resources. It may not be the most reliable sports sedan, but hey, neither are those vaunted nameplates from the Rhineland.

And the best part is, depreciation has been swift and steep, making a second-hand LS a decent buy. Get the V8 and steal some bleach from the laundry room.

Unlike new-car dealerships, whose low, low financing rates are subsidized by the manufacturers to keep their assembly lines humming, used-vehicle dealers remain at the mercy of the lending market.

And despite the fact interest rates are at historic lows, used-car lots are borrowing at 5.99 per cent right now – a good rate, but not a great one. Yet consumers won’t be seeing that number on their loan agreement.

The dirty secret of the finance world is that your chartered bank would rather loan the money to dealers than to their own customers. In fact, auto dealers earn a cash incentive from the banks to loan that money out at the highest possible interest rate.

“Banks pay a flat commission for a base rate loan, and incentives if the borrower has good credit and can be bumped to a higher interest rate,” explains George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association (apa.ca).

“For a $10,000 loan, the best rate from the small dealer I contacted is 7.25 per cent; the dealer can get a commission of about $150 (from the bank). By bumping the rate by 1.5 percentage (points), the dealer will collect $400.”

“It incentivizes the dealer not to give you the best rate,” says Iny.

As a general rule, car loans valued at less than $10,000 are levied a higher interest rate, while larger sums are cheaper to borrow.

Car loans are almost always negotiable. When pressed, most dealers can shave a half-per cent off the quoted rate to win your business, but to really get their attention, utter the two most hated words in the car business: credit union.

“A credit union can offer car loans at 6 to 6.25 per cent to their best customers,” Iny says. “Dealers hate that. It’s like showing a crucifix to a vampire.”

The best bank rate for a larger loan on a more recent model can be as low as 6.5 per cent. But to qualify for their lowest rates, banks want to see substantial money down: about 15 to 20 per cent of the vehicle’s transaction price.

The banks’ dealer plans are available for vehicles as old as 2005, with a surcharge on the interest rate for 2004 models. For older vehicles and weaker borrowers, expect to pay between 12 and up to 28 per cent with sub-prime lenders such as Wells Fargo. Buyers in this class – typically new Canadians and poor credit risks – are often desperate and will pay, says Iny.

The “get-me-done” auto loan is a specialty of used-car lots that advertise wheels for clients who are credit risks, often the same people who use cash-advance payday services. They typically need a car right away to get to work.

Customers with a fixed address and two paycheques can qualify – as long as they can put one-third down, agree to expensive add-ons like administration fees and warranties, and are shopping the $3,500 to $5,000 auto market.

“The cost to the dealer of the cheap car is recouped up front through the down payment and various fees, so the loan repayment is pure profit,” explains Kevin Bavelaar, president of used-car retailer Auto Showplace.

“Sub-prime lenders take the `deals with the hair on it,’ as it’s called,” he says. “But miss the payment by one day and you’ll find your car hooked on a tow truck.”

Bavelaar advises against giving into the punishing interest rates and excessive fees: “Take the bus for a couple of years and save your money.”

He points out most of his showroom customers tap their personal line of credit, with an interest rate ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 per cent. The only problem with that, he says, is that the principal often remains untouched as consumers fall into the trap of paying only the minimum monthly charge.

“At least with a bank loan, there’s a start and an end date to it,” Bavelaar says. Car loans are also open, which means they can be paid off anytime with no penalties.

Auto broker Mark Derry of Carsense.to says it’s not uncommon for buyers to bring in a co-signer, often a relative, who can guarantee repayment of the loan – making it less risky and hence more affordable – although he cautions it’s a commitment not to be taken lightly.

“If the client defaults, the co-signer risks her own credit rating if things go awry.” Alternatively, the new breed of online financial institutions is very consumer friendly. Derry says PC Financial is currently offering an “all-purpose” loan with very competitive rates starting at 5.2 per cent, depending upon the repayment schedule (the shorter the term, the lower the rate).

In addition, Derry says, some manufacturers are moving into factory financing of their dealers’ used inventory as another way to build brand loyalty. The rates are usually very competitive – 2.9 or 3.9 per cent on selected models – but often specify shorter terms, such as 24 or 36 months.

Bob Pierce, director of member services for the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario, says many smaller, independent used-car dealers find it difficult to arrange favourable financing. Especially those selling older, high-mileage models.

He’d like to see the banks evaluate the car and the borrower, rather than write off the whole segment and leave it to the sub-prime lenders.

“With the new disclosure rules coming in January, the focus should be on the vehicle and whether it is worth the value of the loan,” says Pierce.

In the meantime, dealers are discovering new financing portals online that appear to be more competitive than the traditional lenders.

Pierce advises used-car shoppers to take the time to scrutinize their loan agreement. There’s a new tick box for clients to initial, indicating they understand their payment obligations.

“Slow down and read the stuff.”

That changed when “Bunkie” Knudsen became Pontiac general manager in 1956 and introduced a performance theme for the brand. One of his first acts was to hire gearhead John DeLorean.

Pontiac’s re-imaging began with the 1957 Bonneville, which featured a fuel-injected V8 that made 310 hp and 400 lb.-ft of torque.

Move ahead a half-century and history essentially repeated itself with the shoehorning of a V8 engine into the Grand Prix – the most powerful motor ever to grace a North American front-wheel-drive sedan.

For a swan song by a faded brand, it was pretty cool.

CONFIGURATION

Pontiac’s mid-size sedan received a thorough makeover for 2004 (the two-door retired the previous year). The W-platform wheelbase remained unchanged, but the swoopy new body grew a little longer.

Inside, rear legroom increased ever so slightly, while rear headroom actually shrank. Shoppers noticed that the cabin was quite cramped.

“My head, my shoulders and knees all are touching everywhere,” posted the owner of a ’07 model. “It’s also impossible to have three adults in the back seat.”

One tall driver reportedly whacked his head on the sunroof, breaking the mechanism. Not only did he have a headache, but to add insult to injury, he was presented with a nasty repair bill.

The cockpit was a hodgepodge of “exciting” Pontiac shapes and colours, all aglow in the trademark fighter-red lighting. Critics lambasted the automaker for its overwrought plastics.

The split-folding rear seat allowed the spacious trunk to take longer loads as needed. Even the front passenger seat folded down to accommodate really long cargo.

The base model GT1 and fancier GT2 made use of GM’s venerable Series III 3800 V6 engine, putting out 200 hp and 230 lb.-ft. of torque. The GTP models got an Eaton Gen 5 supercharger that boosted the V6′s output to 260 hp, up 20 from the previous year.

GM’s four-speed automatic remained the sole transmission, although the GTP Comp G package featured Pontiac’s TAPshift, allowing manumatic control via steering-wheel paddles.

All models had standard four-wheel disc brakes; anti-lock and traction controls were optional on the base model.

For 2005, Pontiac sweetened the performance mix with the GXP, which adopted the LS4 5.3 L V8, making 303 hp and 323 lb-ft of torque directed through the front tires. It featured a shortened crankshaft and other modifications to allow it to fit, as well as active fuel management technology that shut down cylinders during steady-state cruising to save fuel.

The 260-hp supercharged engine was dropped after 2007. All Grand Prix production ended after the 2008 model year as part of GM’s planned retirement of the Pontiac brand by 2010.

ON THE ROAD

Compared to sporty imports such as the Nissan Maxima and Volkswagen Passat, the Grand Prix felt unrefined in terms of its chassis dynamics. The ride can be harsh on frost-heaved roads, depending on the tire-wheel combo.

Although the V8-powered GXP provided gobs of thrust, torque steer was an issue with the aging front-drive chassis. Engineers mitigated the problem by specifying fatter rubber (255/45R18) on the front wheels than the rear (225/50R18).

The base 200-hp car could accelerate to 96 km/h in 8.1 seconds; the supercharged GTP could do it in 6.6 seconds. The badass V8 trimmed a full second off the latter time.

“This is a great highway vehicle. Quiet and quick when it’s needed,” posted the owner of an ’05 GT.

Owners liked the car’s smooth power delivery and ability to consume great distances in comfort. They also singled out fuel economy as a positive, since both the V6 and V8 tended to sip rather than guzzle.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

The Oshawa-built Grand Prix has earned a lot of repeat business and for good reason: GM’s durable 3800 V6 and Hydra-Matic 4T65-E automatic transmission were a proven team.

That’s not to say the 2004-08 Grand Prix is immune to mechanical snafus, because some owners did report significant ones.

A clunk in the steering that can be felt and heard during slow turns was traced to the steering intermediate shaft, which should be replaced. Water may leak from the A-pillar due to a seam that was not properly sealed, or from the fresh-air intake grille.

“Water comes through the front dome light, luckily right into the cup holder,” one owner observed.

Beyond these documented problems, drivers reported faulty transmissions, air conditioners, wheel bearings, purge valves and numerous front-end suspension parts.

If you find a good one, the Grand Prix can reward you with low maintenance bills – which will cause you to wonder why Pontiac was fingered to take the fall.

Nope, it was Honda.

After decades of nationalistic pride that made Fiat, Renault and Volkswagen big sellers, Europeans are challenging their automakers to be more competitive.

J.D. Power and Associates’ customer satisfaction studies reveal that Japanese nameplates took five of the six top positions in Germany in 2006.

One German model that’s been under pressure from rivals is the Audi A4 – a critically acclaimed small sedan that’s a questionable second-hand buy.

CONFIGURATION

Audi’s top-selling model underwent a complete redesign for 2002, borrowing some visual cues from its handsome bigger brother, the A6. It grew slightly larger, gaining 33 mm in width and wheelbase, and 58 mm overall.

It was more commodious inside, though you’d be hard-pressed to find the extra space. The rear seat was tight for two adults and uncomfortable for three.

Beyond that, the cabin was a great place to spend time. While the layout was simple, the materials and their fit and finish were first-rate, with rich fabrics or leather, muted aluminum and real wood inserts contributing to a sensual, tactile experience.

Double door seals and 30 per cent thicker glass enhanced the hush.

The new A4 arrived as a four-door sedan and Avant wagon. The Cabriolet (convertible) was added for 2003, complete with a power-folding softtop that featured a heated glass rear window.

The base 1.8T sedan made use of Volkswagen’s 170-hp turbocharged 1.8 L four cylinder that drove the front wheels. Optional was a five-valves-per-cylinder 3.0 L V6 rated at 220 horsepower – a gain of 30 hp over the old model.

New to the A4 was an optional continuously variable transmission (CVT), which employed a steel chain between two pulleys whose diameters varied to change the gear ratio seamlessly. Ultra-low gearing negated the need for a power-robbing torque converter.

Available on front-drive models only, the CVT could emulate a six-speed Tiptronic manumatic transmission by moving the shift lever sideways and using the steering-wheel buttons.

Audi’s celebrated “Quattro” all-wheel-drive system was optional, tied to a five- or six-speed manual or conventional five-speed automatic tranny.

The high-performance S4 returned for 2004, packing a 340-hp 4.2 L V8 and a six-speed manual or automatic transmission.

The A4 received a thorough reworking for 2006, including fresh engines and revised steering and suspension geometry. Visually, all models adopted the new corporate trapezoidal grille.

The introduction of fuel-stratified injection (FSI) on the 2.0 L four and 3.1 L V6 motors boosted power output to 197 hp and 252 hp, respectively.

Both engines reverted to four valves per cylinder due to the location of the FSI injectors.

ON THE ROAD

“The precision of the steering, the power of the turbo and overall fun-to-drive aspect has revitalized me and given me a reason to love cars again,” posted an enthusiastic A4 owner.

There’s no question Audi knows how to build a composed and talented chassis. Auto scribes heaped praise for its poise and refinement – at least in V6 form (the VW four can be a tad noisy and rough).

The base 1.8T (170 hp) accelerated to 96 km/h in 8.1 seconds, while the more capable 3.0 L six did it in 6.8 (7.0 with the CVT). The muscular S4 could do it in 5.5 seconds, thanks in part to Quattro’s ability to distribute the power and torque through all four wheels.

The A4 1.8T could generate 0.85 g of lateral grip and stop confidently, thanks to its generous brake rotors.

Owners were split on fuel consumption. Some felt the small sedan should return better numbers, while others reported good highway fuel economy – using premium grade.

WHAT OWNERS REPORTED

Audi has earned a following in North America for its crisp designs and Bauhaus-inspired interiors. Unfortunately for devotees, the A4 often tests their loyalty.

“Within seven months I had the transmission replaced three times. Recently the oil pump malfunctioned and the engine blew,” reported a hapless owner of an ’04 model.

The CVT transmission has bitten the dust in sizable numbers and warrants close inspection (the fluid should be changed every 60,000 km).

The 1.8T engine has an ignition coil serving each cylinder and those coils fail with frightening regularity, sometimes stranding drivers. A faulty fuel pump can do the same.

The turbo is notorious for burning oil. Keep a close watch on the dipstick and only use synthetic motor oil. Engine-killing sludge formation is an issue.

Other frailties include water leaks stemming from the A-pillar, electrical gremlins, failed window regulators and sunroof motors, weak air conditioners, short-lived timing belts (a recall item), clutches and headlamps.

Best advice from owners? Don’t buy a used Audi without a comprehensive warranty.