Fiesta's new green resembles radioactive lime.

By John Gilbert
If Ford is correct, consumers in the United States have successfully conquered their previously-insatiable thirst for large cars and trucks, and will be taking a giant step by going small in the next couple of years.

The theory is that in 2002, there were 23 million small-car segment cars sold, and by 2012, there will be 38 million. While always producing cars for that segment in the U.S., and more and better small cars for European markets, Ford is unleashing a new two-pronged attack with the soon-to-come global Focus renovation, and the just-arriving Fiesta. The Fiesta is aimed at the smaller end of the segment, smaller than Focus, but the new car is bristling with new tricks that promise performance, fuel economy (up to 40 mpg), good handlling, impressive looks, adequate room (for a compact), and great pricing — everything the modern U.S. consumer/family could want.

Who are we to question Ford — the only U.S. auto manufacturer that had enough foresight, and acted on it, to not require government bailout loans to stay in business. While arch-rival General Motors and Chrysler have been scrambling to regain their equilibrium, Ford brought a series of cars, trucks, and technical advances to the marketplace, with the new Taurus, the improved Fusion, including a hybrid, plus the upgraded Mustang, the Flex wagon, and the new F-150, as well as the Transit Connect. A flock of new engines have been impressive, and EcoBoost versons offer meaningful performance upgrades via turbocharging without denting fuel efficiency .

Many consumers might remember the Fiesta when Ford brought it in decades ago, and it was a tough little hatchback, fun to drive and economical, while it lasted. Cheap gas and the popularity of large vehicles caused Ford to quit bringing in the Fiesta, but it kept selling in Europe. Last year, Ford sold 750,000 Fiestas globally, and it passed the Volkswagen Golf in European popularity.

The U.S. market grew away from small cars, despite economic and environmental reasons that we should be clamoring for them. Simple things make smaller cars rational. For one, they can be built and reinforced to be safe and surprisingly roomy inside. Once those standards are met, lighter vehicles make it far easier to get more power and dazzling fuel economy from smaller engines, and lighter cars are much easier to enhance agility up to the fun-to-drive levels. The Fiesta, which will be all-new in the U.S., and sharing assets globally with Focuses worldwide, scores on all these counts.

In the U.S., Fiesta comes as sedan (left), or hatchback.

U.S. consumers will get the globally popular 5-door hatchback, but to accommodate us, Ford is adding a 4-door sedan, with a neatly sloping rear roofline specifically for the U.S. Frankly, I like the silhouette of the sedan, which looks similar to the sweeping lines of, say, a miniaturized Mazda6, but there is no question the hatchback is not only eye-catching, but offers the versatility that lures customers around the rest of the world.

With the bottom line as a prime objective, Ford is pricing the 4-door-sedan at a base $13,995, and the hatchback at a base of $15,795. No matter how you dissect it, the Fiesta offers a lot of car for a bargain price.

Driving hard through the mountainous roadways near San Francisco, up and back to Half Moon Bay, the Fiesta had plenty of pep, and its advanced electric steering was sure-feeling and made it easy to carve precise lines around the tightest curves. The standard 5-speed manual transmission handles the small, 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine very well, although it led me to an easy question: Why no 6-speed manual? Ford’s answer was that the 5-speed is the same transmission used globally — which is to avoid implying the 5-speed is as good as a 6-speed would be.

Then we switched to the automatic version, and there is no doubt that the PowerShift automatic was designed to make the perfect fit with the Fiesta and its powerplant. It is not just an automatic, but an all-new sequential-manual. Designed by transmission specialist Getrag, it has two clutches inside the casing, with one activating first-third-fifth, and the second handling second-fourth-sixth. When you accelerate, the transmission’s electro-mechanical actuators shift with fluid smoothness, because it simply changes which clutch is engaged.

Sophisticated road-racing cars went to sequential manuals years ago, because the computerized device can shift in a couple of milliseconds, much quicker than an expert can shift a stick with a clutch. Audi introduced and perfected the first real-world DSG (direct-sequential manual) for the A4, A3, TT, and the same unit is also used by Audi parent Volkswagen for the Golf GTI, and for both the new Golf and Jetta TDI turbo-diesel models, and it has been added to replace the Tiptronic in the CC for 2010. Mitsubishi also has an outstanding sequential-manual for the Lancer and Evolution, and the Outlander crossover SUV. Porsche, with its long-awaited PDK, uses the same technique, and BMW has revised its automatic transmission for similar effect.

My guess is eventually all automatics will be slick-shifting sequential-manuals, which led me to my second serious question about the 2011 Fiesta: Why are there no steering-wheel shift paddles to allow the driver the sheer joy of manually choosing gears, or at the very least, a manual gate on the shift lever? Such devices would bring the Fiesta up to true, sporting optimum. Ford said its market research didn’t show sufficient demand or interest for manual operation of the PowerShift, prompting my response that paddle-shifters are what amplifies the superiority of the Audi, VW, Porsche, Mitsubishi, and BMW clutchless-manuals. In truth, even though those cars up- and downshift so magically in “D” that the paddles are best for special cases where the driver insists on proving not all control has been yielded to the machine.

The question of “Who are we to question Ford?” answered itself, because I was stubborn enough to ask several different engineers why the Fiesta lacks paddles, until finally one of them said, “Not yet.”

That was more encouraging than the fluff that nobody wants them, anyway.

Ford is aiming the Fiesta most directly at the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, all Scions, the Nissan Versa, Mini Cooper, and also the larger compact class stalwarts Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. Ford has to be careful here, of course, because once they mention Civic and Corolla, they’re inviting comparative shoppers to decide between Fiesta and the Ford Focus.

In competitive driving, the Fit was the primary target, and Ford claims better fuel economy, more power, quieter operation, and better handling. We all gathered in the parking lot of Candlestick Park — where the San Francisco Giants used to play — and we played on a high-speed slalom course and on a cone-lined autocross circuit. Both of those sessions featured some sudden and heavy thunderstorms that rolled in off the ocean and forced us to drive through some serious puddles.

Strangely enough, Ford missed on one count. The only Fiestas for the autocross were stick-shift models, although it seemed to be a perfect setting to see the PowerShift go through its maximum paces. Without question, the Fiesta did the job on the autocross, which was best mastered by accelerating hard at the start, hitting second, and simply leaving the stick in second while thrashing around the twists and turns.

It was almost as though failing to have the Fiesta automatic for our use fit into my argument, because the Fit leaned more in the turns, without question, but the Fit also has steering-wheel paddles, and being able to fingertip-shift it made it fun on the autocross — and proves what makes it such a popular small car for those who want a sporty feel with their economy. My opinion is that the presence of paddles is enough of an asset for the Fit that not having them could be a potential deal-breaker for those who compare the Fit and Fiesta.

Fiesta 5-door hatchback, at Candlestick Park.

However, by the time we got through with some mountain road driving, I had backed off a bit, because the PowerShift worked very well on upshifts, which is no surprise, but it also worked surprisingly well downshifting, too. We had driven up one particularly twisty section, and we came back down the same way. Having driven it only once, I was looking forward to another shot at one particular hairpin turn on the downhill return. I admit I went into it too hot. Not too hot for my driving, or the car’s suspension, which is what I was trying to test in that turn, but too hot for the Fiesta’s computerized controller, which downshifted the PowerShift two gears, throttle-blips and all. It was almost as though the car was saying, “What the heck is this guy doing? Oh well, we’ll save him.”

You can hate it when cars are smarter than the drivers, but this was impressive, and could be a factor in the device’s potential sales. The transmission is scarcely larger than the 5-speed manual, and is the same size as the outgoing 4-speed automatic, with wide ratios that attain maximum fuel economy with two overdrives, fifth and sixth.

Still chippy, I changed my line of questioning: Is Ford the first company to offer more gears in the 6-speed automatic than in the 5-speed stick? Nobody was certain. But it is an oddity.

The 1.6-liter engine has modest numbers, with only 120 horsepower and 112 foot-pounds of torque, but Ford again has proven that technology can overcome meager numbers. Its comparative light weight helps make it feel plenty peppy, aided considerably by Ti-VCT, which is “twin independent variable cam timing,” facilitating the adjustment of both intake and exhaust valves depending on driver demand and load. The snappy performance shows the merit of such technology, and the misleading nature of the horsepower and torque numbers.

Steve Pinta, chief engineer of the North America Fiesta, explained that the car’s light weight was achieved by using 55 percent high-strength steel, including ultra-high boron steel in the front A pillars and the side door sills. High-grade steel provides better strength even with less steel, improving both weight and safety. Seven airbags, including a driver knee bag, adds to the safety, as does the standard-issue AdvanceTrac with stability control. For interior quiet, acoustic improvements to the windshield, pillars, headliner, front and rear doors, floor, and door seals give the Fiesta the secure feel of a larger, heavier car.

Hatchback hides surprisingly large stowage area.

Handling is conquered by front struts, a rear twist-beam axle, stabilizer bars, and a couple of features called drift-pull, which alters torque to help straighten out a wayward car, and anti-nibble cancellation, which counters the tendency to feel twitchy in cornering. That’s in addition to the electric power-steering system.

Ford claims that people making over $100,000 a year in salary are the new breed of small-car buyers, and of considerable interest to new and younger buyers are things like mobile device interaction. Ford, of course, offers its unique Sync system of interactive electronic devices. The Fiesta interacrts with Apple Link and Blackberrys, and uses Smart Apps to allow control via touch-screen handiness. Ford also anticipates more and better website applications to create the optimum mobile application environment.

Striking looks stand out more because of outlandish colors like lime green and magenta among nine available colors, and there are seven different colors for interior lights, and three different colors of leather, if you choose leather seats.

Even those who accuse some of those high-tech features as gimmicks, any test drive will leave you appreciating quick performance, advanced transmissions, and great handling, and Ford stresses the coordination of all those ideas are what sets the Fiesta above the competition. Altogether, they make the Fiesta a definite contender for anyone willing to put a lot of stuff into a smaller package, at a budget price.

Sonata's stunning redesign is more than skin deep.

By John Gilbert

The calendar is barely halfway throughaid 2010, but Hyundai has been caught up in 2011 ever since its completely redesigned 2011 Sonata has hit the showrooms, stirring up unprecedented interest and demand.

The preceding Sonata hit the streets in 2005, and became a low-key but successful and cost-effective alternative to the midsize stalwarts, such as Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Mazda6, Nissan Altima, and whatever other nameplates crowd into that mainstream “midsize” form chart. With the Sonata as its primary weapon, Hyundai surprised the auto world for calendar 2009 by making a profit and gaining marketshare in a year when all those others suffered heavy losses.

Before you can say “Who are these guys?” Hyundai unleashed the 2011 Sonata  barely into February, as the first vehicle built in a new high-technology plant in Montgomery, Alabama. That creates an interesting irony, with a South Korean company stabilizing the regional economy by building a car in a U.S. plant, using U.S. workers, and being embraced by a whole lot of good-ol’ Southerners, rednecks and all. But the whole plan is only as good as the car that comes out of the factory, and the new Sonata is very good.

In my opinion, the new Sonata is the best-looking of the whole batch of midsize cars. It almost seems that Hyundai’s California design studio kidnapped the Mercedes designer who drew up the superb CLS and copied its sweeping, coupe-like silhouette. The Sonata’s slippery shape has a coefficient of drag of 0.28, where anything under 0.35 is good, and 0.30 is exceptional.

Under that artfully-sloped body is the substance that makes the Sonata a cinch contender for 2011 Car of the Year. Pick the most important characteristic — base price, loaded price, fuel economy, engine technology, transmission function, precise steering, sporty and agile handling, firm-but-not-harsh suspension, supportive seats, interior amenities, head and leg room, trunk space, and a great warranty — and Sonata has achieved all of them.

The mainstream players in the midsize segment all start their prices in the

Designers clicked on every Sonata appearance angle.

mid-$20,000 range, and soar to $35,000 at the drop of a nav system. By comparison, the Hyundai Sonata has three models: The GLS starts at $19,295 and is pretty well equipped; the sportier SE starts at $22,595 with firmer suspension; and the top-level, leather-seat Limited starts at $25,295. True, you can add all sorts of feature options at each level to drive those prices up, but a fully loaded Limited, with leather seats and a navigation system, would still be under $27,000. As it stands, it is about $8,000 less than similarly equipped competitors, and if that was and Acura or Lexus, or Mercedes, logo on the grille, its price might double.

The new Sonata comes only with a 4-cylinder engine, in a tactical ploy by Hyundai. No V6 option, and John Krafcik, the President and CEO of Hyundai America, explained the strategy. Sonata buyers choosing V6 engines had dropped to only 12 percent, so Hyundai reasoned that the car could be coordinated much more tightly if the engine compartment could be designed around only the 4-cylinder, which 88 percent of Sonata buyers were already choosing, and if the 4 could be improved technically, nobody would miss the V6, and the new Sonata could be tighter, leaner, stronger, and safer.

Even a brief drive in the new Sonata is convincing about the unified feel of tightness, although the potency of the engine’s advanced design immediately makes its case for equal attention.

The Theta II GDI engine has all the latest high-tech tricks. Not only does it have dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, and dual variable valve-timing, but “GDI” stands for gas direct-injection, which injects a far more compressed and temperature-controlled dose of fuel directly into each cylinder. The 4-cylinder engines in all the top midsize cars measure either 2.4 or 2.5 liters, all have DOHC designs, but the development of direct injection lifts the Sonata to 198 horsepower and 184 foot-pounds of torque. By comparison, the Accord’s 2.4 has 177 horsepower/161 foot-pounds of torque; Altima’s 2.5 has 175/180; the Fusion (and Mazda6) 2.5 has 175/172; Camry’s 2.5 has 169/167; and Malibu’s 2.4 has 169/160.

To save you from comparing figures, Hyundai’s technology earns a horsepower edge that ranges from 21 horses over the runner-up Accord, to 29 over the Camry and Malibu. Sonata’s torque edge ranges from 4 more foot-pounds than the runner-up Altima, to 24 more than Malibu.

For those who like to compare EPA fuel economy estimates — I prefer real-world numbers — all the midsize models have 4-cylinder engines measuring either 2.4 or 2.5 liters in displacement. Sonata’s EPA figures for city/highway are 22/35 miles per gallon for the automatic, and 24/ 35 with the 6-speed manual. Competitors range from a low of 22 city, except for Altima’s 23, to the Sonata’s high of 35 on the highway cycle. Other highway EPAs show the Accord and Fusion at 31 with automatics, Camry and Malibu at 33 each, and the Fusion at 34 with the stick.

In real-world driving, however, there is reason to believe the Sonata will expand its edge substantially. I recalled a conversation I had a couple years earlier with Krafcik, a sharp-witted, clever, and candid fellow who has bold ideas and won’t hesitate to discuss them. I mentioned how some companies have trouble approaching their EPA estimates and refuse to discuss “real world” gas mileage, presumably to let optimistic EPA estimates conceal a shortcoming.

U.S. Hyundai president John Krafcik vowed top mpg.

Krafcik said: “Now that we’ve gotten our EPA fuel economy numbers up where we want them, our next objective is to make our real-world gas mileage the best, too.” At the Sonata introduction, he put his words into action. He surprised himself by getting exceptional fuel economy when checking out the roads his people had set up in the mountain roadways near San Diego. Krafcik then fashoned a challenge to media members to spend part of the drive enjoying the car’s performance on curvy mountain roads up to and past the Julian Pie Shop, and then compete to see who could get the best fuel economy on the return route, from the South Coast Winery to Torrey Pines hotel.

Being a gas-mileage zealot, I set the on-board computer on the curvy part, as well, and got 38.3 miles per gallon. Very impressive. On the return route, much of the 60.3 miles was freeway, and I was driving with a Hyundai engineer who also was a hockey fan. We got engrossed in great conversation, about Herb Brooks, and a book I’ve written about his coaching career, and while comparing the Olympics then and now, e approached Exit 27, and he said: “Oops! We were supposed to turn on Exit 19.”

Not a problem. We cut across the countryside and got to the hotel in plenty of time. While I find mileage tests interesting, I dislike the idea of “hyper-mileage” tricks, such as extremely slow speeds than can obstruct traffic. I drove at the speed limit, although I attempted to draft behind a large, square-back semi part of the way. When we heard the winning tandem recorded 52.8 miles per gallon, and second best was 49.0, we accused them of driving 40 mph on the shoulder. For us, including the part where we thrashed around to find an alternate route, I averaged 46.8 miles per gallon, and declared it flat amazing.

Flashing back to EPA estimates, Hyundai now averages 30.1 miles per gallon for its entire fleet. Honda is second best at 29.7, Volkswagen 29.6, and Toyota 29.4, but Hyundai is the only manufacturer to have a corporate average over 30 miles per gallon. And when you consider that the Sonata so easily topped its 35-mpg EPA highway estimate, and so readily reached 40-plus, you realize Hyundai technology has allowed Krafcik’s vow to blossom.

In overall length, the Sonata is 189.8 inches, while the Camry is 189.2, the Fusion 190.6, Altima 190.7, Malibu 191.8, the Mazda6 193.7, and the Accord 194.1. Interestingly, though, the Sonata has a total interior volume of 120.2 cubic feet, while the Accord has 120.0; those are the only two in the class that meet large-car interior limits, while the rest are properly midsize, as the Fusion lists 116.8, the Camry 116.4, the Altima 116.0, and the Malibu 112.8.  The Sonata’s mix shows passenger volume of 103.8, where only the Accord’s 106.0 tops it, and a cargo volume of 16.4 cubic feet, where only the Fusion’s 16.5 beats it. The Accord, with top passenger volume, has the least cargo volume in the class at 14.0.

The Sonata weighs only 3,161 pounds with a 6-speed manual — yes, a stick-shift! — while with a 6-speed automatic, the Sonata weighs a still-svelte 3,199 pounds. The Altima, at 3,180 pounds, is the only one lighter, while, for example, the Accord is 3,269, the Camry 3,307, the Fusion 3,342, and the Malibu 3,415.

Combining more power — from technical advances, not enlarged displacement — with lighter weight gives the Sonata a clearcut edge in acceleration. But its handling is also impressive. With strut front and multi-link rear suspension, the SE model has 23-percent firmer front and 8 percent firmer rear shocks, with a 13-percent larger rear stabilizer bar. That helps adroit handling, and the steering and design give the Sonata a 35.8-foot turning radius. Comparatively, the Camry and Altima need 36.1 feet, the Fusion 37.5, the Accord 37.7, and the Malibu 40.4 feet. Which do you like for a U-turn?

Sonata looks as good at speed as when parked.

It is neat that the Sonata can be obtained with a 6-speed stick, but its new Shiftronic automatic is also a 6-speed, and yet another example of Hyundai’s astounding technology. Hyundai has become one of only three automakers to have built their own proprietary 6-speed automatics. It took four years of development, and the 6-speed automatic is 26.5 pounds lighter than the 5-speed unit it replaces, and it also is shorter and has 62 fewer moving parts, providing still more room underneath. All three models have a manual shift gate on the shift lever, and the sportier SE adds steering wheel paddles for more precise manual control of the automatic.

Hyundai — which started rebuilding cars from other companies, and didn’t build its first engine until 1991 — has made up a couple of decades of technology in the past couple of years, and is forging ahead. The 2.4 engine put the company’s engineers on a new plane, and they followed up with the superb DOHC V8 that propelled the large Genesis to 2009 Car of the Year honors. They next refined their V6, then came back and improved the 2.4, by adding direct injection. Meanwhile, technology never sleeps, and before calendar year 2010 ends, Hyundai will be adding a 2.0-liter turbocharged 4 with more power than any competing V6, and it is building its own proprietary hybrid model for the Sonata as well.

“Our success in 2009 was the culmination of a lot of hard work,” Krafcik said. “When the economy is hurting, people do more research and put more effort in deciding on their choices. That helps us. We brought out the 2011 Sonata with some Super Bowl ads, and they worked well, especially for a brand like ours, where our image hasn’t caught up with our capabilities. The Sonata is in the ‘white bread’ segment, and we have three objectives: We want to be a rational choice, we want to lead the way in being environmentally friendly, and we want to make an emotional connection.”

With a 4 that beats all the competitive 4s for power and fuel economy, and a turbo 4 that beats their V6es, plus an advanced-technology hybrid, the Sonata takes care of the comparason shoppers with such standard equipment as side-impact airbags and stability control, and a transferable powertrain warranty of 10 years or 100,000 miles. As for depreciation and residual value, Hyundai now ranks above Toyota and Ford. For residual value, the iconic Accord is No. 1, retaining 54 percent of its value after three years, but the Sonata has climbed to second at 53 percent, followed by Altima at 51 percent, Camry and Fusion at 49 percent, and Malibu at 46 percent. And those figures were compiled before the introduction of the entirely new 2011 Sonata.

By John Gilbert

The 2011 Mustang GT and the blue Pacific.

My rule of thumb regarding new vehicle introductions is that the substance generally is inversely proportional to the hype. But while some automakers shower minor updates with overkill, Ford might be guilty of understatement with the introduction of the 2011 Mustang.

If you don’t think it looks different, drive one through city traffic and see how many people in other cars, or on foot, shout out and give you a thumbs-up. And if you don’t think it performs differently, then you fail to comprehend the significance of an entirely new and high-tech, all-aluminum, 5.0-liter V8 that tops 400 horsepower and is more “boss” than those fondly remembered Boss 302 engines of 1970. Or, a novel application of the 3.7-liter version of Ford’s high-tech V6 that tops 300 horsepower. Both engines perform admirably for go-power as well as go-past-the-gas-station efficiency.

Summoning the nation’s automotive media to Los Angeles, Ford introduced the new car by officially calling it the “2011 Mustang Refresh.” During a car’s four or five year lifespan, it might get refreshed with a mid-term styling tweak, and in the Mustang’s case, that was done for the 2010 model year. The new 2011 version stayed on the same platform, with the same basic silhouette and innovative interior features, so some journalists overlooked the obvious question why Ford would bring a herd of journalists to California for only a change of taillights. Some published reports I’ve read, from syndications as well as national magazines, expressed positive vibes about the new engines, but kissed off exterior styling by saying since the Mustang was updated for 2010, the 2011 is only modestly changed.

Modest? Ford may have to go back to Hyperbole School. Chief engineer Dave Pericak simplified the preliminary information by issuing the motto the engineering team accepted as its challenge: “Improve everything, and compromise nothing.” Car-makers who have done much less to a car could have turned that into a 20-minute monologue.

The base Mustang has a clean look and a potent V6.

The 2010 Mustang looked good, refining an appearance that was close to resembling the iconic 1970 Mustang. For 2011, the grille, headlights, and hood have been stylishly changed for a still-sleeker look, but what I like best about the change is the taillight assembly. Through 2010, the Mustang’s three narrow vertical lights on either side are straight across, symmetric and very similar to 1969 or ‘70. For 2011, Ford designers tapered the entire rear fascia on both corners, angling right where those taillights are positioned. The difference is a new look, and it allows a pedestrian on the curb to see the three taillights on his or her side, and if the turn signal is on, the slick sequential blinking is eye-catching.

Just another reason why bystanders seem to notice that the Mustang is changed, even if some PR types, and journalists, overlooked it.

Restyled rear facade angle displays taillights, sequential turn signals, from side.

Ford revolutionized the U.S. auto industry when it brought out the first Mustang, back in 1965, leading a charge that brought us a flock of competitors, including the Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Plymouth Barracuda, Pontiac Firebird, and the American Motors Javelin, as everybody sought a piece of the highly popular “ponycar” segment.

Younger journalists, who might not remember all that, have actually suggested that the term “ponycar” came from the name Mustang, assuming a horse-to-horse connection, when actually the term covered that whole array of long-hood/short-rear deck, front-engine/rear-drive sporty coupes, because they were smaller than the big sedans and sedan-based coupes of the day — and therefore ponies to the larger horses.

Midsize cars and the demise of the early 1970s hot cars carved into the segment’s chunk, and one by one, all of the others disappeared — all but the Mustang, which scrambled to change with the times. The times saw a Japanese takeover of the sporty coupe market, with Honda leading the way with the Accord coupe version, and the expansion of cars such as the Mazda MX-6 version of the 626. So the Mustang got smaller, but it also under-achieved with less-performance, then it grew again, and took on a newer V8 engine. Finally, in the new century, the Mustang came back with styling resembling its original self, and the resurgence was so successful that Dodge brought out a new Challenger, and Chevrolet followed with the long-awaited return of the Camaro.

Ford stayed on its game, refining the Mustang further and adding the latest two or three Shelby models to revive memories of Cobras past. The Chellenger and the Camaro are sturnning to look at, but they share one problem — both are surprisingly heavy. The Challenger body was placed on the Charger’s sedan platform, and stuffing a Hemi V8 in it helped performance. The Camaro is also very heavy, so Chevy complements a strong 3.6-liter V6 with the 6.2-liter Corvette V8, in order to assure that it moves, which it does quite well, at that.

It was with an eye toward those two reborn competitors that Ford redid the Mustang for 2010. As a lighter, more agile, and adequately-powered sporty coupe with the overhead-cam 4.6-liter V8, the Mustang didn’t lose its all-around driveability edge. Still, Chevy buyers are buying Camaros and Dodge buyers have to love the Challenger, and both of them could boast of the great power from those great, if aging, pushrod engines.

So Ford, which has spent the year since its top rivals required government bailout loans to stay afloat by turning out a series of technical advancements, and struck again. First, Ford discarded the 4.0-liter V6, an engine that began life powering Ford’s European cars, with a German heritage that gained overhead cams and enough improvement over the years to almost stay current. Because Ford had come out with a jewel of a front-wheel-drive V6 three years ago, as a 3.5-liter, which has a 3.7-liter derivative, Ford engineers switched the transverse-mount, front-wheel-drive architecture to longitudinal placement, connected it to a driveshaft, ran its power through to that solid axle rear end, and plunked the revitalized Mustang body on top.

If you didn’t know there was a V8 available, the 3.7 V6 would be more than enough. And it is, even if you are a V8 fancier. It turns out 305 horsepower, putting it in the class of one to attain both more than 300 horses and an EPA estimate of over 30 miles per gallon, at 31 highway. It also has 280 foot-pounds of torque, giving the Mustang plenty of punch off the line, or as the revs rise to its impressive 7,000-RPM redline. You can get the Mustang with the 3.7 with either the 6-speed manual transmission or the 6-speed automatic, and it comes with dual exhausts.

For one of our competitive drive events, we drove various V6 models out to a large parking lot location where a series of cones outlined a nice, twisty autocross. So impressive was the power when turned loose in full song, even for the short bursts between curves that I asked the Ford engineers, “Are these V8s?” They were not. All were V6-powered. This V6, in the Mustang, has the same power as the impressive SVT Mustang V8 churned out in 1999.

Performance package, without the large foglights.

Maybe the car doesn’t “need” a V8, but that comes under the heading of what we want vs. what we need. Ford designed an entirely new V8, being careful to make it match the old “5.0-liter” displacement figure. It is definitely something special, from its forged steel crankshaft, to its dual-overhead-camshaft, high-revving potency, and to the wonderful warble of its forceful  exhaust.

Because of an uneven number of journalists, I had the benefit of being accompanied by Tom Barnes, a Ford engineer. Not only was it a benefit because Barnes was a great source of information, but he’d driven the car enough, so instead of the usual driver changes along the route, I got to drive it all, both days.

Surprisingly, the Mustang has stayed with a solid rear axle, compared to the sophisticated independent rear axles of virtually all other cars. But if the bottom line is how the car handles, the Mustang’s exploits on the autocross course, as well as while sailing through the curving California foothills, up mountains and down through valleys, is pretty convincing. Besides, the weight-saving fits Mustang’s concept of staying light and agile. That’s another reason why 5-liters is more than enough. With the dual overhead cams twirling, the new V8 cranks out 412 horsepower and 390 foot-pounds of torque.

After wringing out the V6 models, we got inside the V8 Mustang GT, and headed through some more mountain roads until we arrived at a small regional airport, where Ford had contracted to set up a small, eighth-mile dragstrip on one of the runways.

For those still running on the fumes of the old days, it might seem foolish for Ford to look at the Hemi and the 6.2 Corvette engine in its competitors and think of challenging them with its new V8,measuring only 5.0 liters. Those folks need to realize that the old American-car theory that “there’s no substitute for cubic inches” has been blown away by the contemporary answer: “Yes there is — it’s called technology.”

As everybody lined up to take their turns and get acquainted with the standard drag-racing “Christmas tree” starting lights, I took a warm-up run in the Mustang — all of which were equipped with the 6-speed automatic transmission. You could click the traction-control on or off, depending on whether you wanted to screech the street-radial tires or glue the car to the track for maximum traction.

A couple of flashy Camaros were in the left lane, with their Corevette engines and all. I tried one, and it felt swift and strong as I cranked off a run that was clocked at 9.235 seconds, hitting 80.81 miles per hour. I was impressed. Then I tried a sequence of different Mustangs, with different rear-axle ratios. With three tries, I ranged from 8.695 seconds at 85.73 mph, to my personal best of 8.573 seconds  at 86.17 mph. A difference of six-tenths of a second, and over 5 mph is an enormous difference in a standing-start, one-eighth-mile drag race. Especially when the swifter time and higher speed were both recorded by 5.0 liters against 6.2 liters.

It was fun, and entertaining, as well as informational. What Ford didn’t bother explaining is that with the dual overhead cams and their higher-revving capability, the Mustang was just starting to reach the range of its performance. We can assume its advantage would have been greater as those cams got into their power range in higher gears.

As for sticker price, the V6-powered Mustang has a base price of $23,000, and the V8-loaded GT model starts at $30,000. Those are bargain prices for so much performance technology, because another of the “modest” upgrades of the 2011 Mustangs are increases of almost 100 horsepower for both V6 and V8 versions, as well as 7-miles-per-gallon fuel economy improvements.

Ford also has hit the mark with packages. The GT gets 19-inch wheels, with a “billet” grille, unless you choose the foglight package, which mounts large lights inside the inset grille. You also get a pedestal spoiler on the rear, and Brembo brakes, as well as upgraded and firmer suspension. The V6 models come in basic, or a Mustang Club of America package, with 18-inch wheels over the standard 17s, and you can also choose a V6 Performance package, adding many of the GT items, including the 19-inch wheels.

If I have a complaint on the slick-steering, high-powered Mustang it’s that Ford has borrowed a page from Chevrolet’s book of tricks by adding the hated skip-shift device, under the guise of summoning up misleading fuel economy numbers for their EPA estimate. The device causes the 6-speed shifter to go directly from first to fourth after moderate acceleration. If you go really slow, or hit the gas hard, it will shift directly from first to second. On the Corvette, and now the Camaro, and other Corvette-powered vehicles in GM’s line, you are now rewarded for buying the stick-shifting Mustang by getting this device.

Foglights set into grille announce GT coming.

Maybe I’m in the distinct minority, but I’m a second-gear lover. Because of that, and because I don’t want to do standing-start burnouts, I tend to start up moderately in first, then hit second and hammer it a bit. Nothing illegal, mind you, but running up the revs in second is all the kicks I need. So when I do my thing, I pull the shifter back and hammer the gas…and the thing falls on its face, because I’m in fourth! By the time I’ve wrestled the shifter back up and around and down into second, I’m seething.

It’s reason enough to buy the 2011 Mustang with the automatic, which is also a 6-speed. Oops! Ford neglected to include steering wheel paddles to allow a driver to manually override the automatic.

If the transmissions have the only things I consider less than ideal, the handling certainly is up to the best high-performance standards. The entire platform is reinforced by a large cross-member that aids stability, and electric power steering avoids the usual pitfall of being devoid of any feel. It feels well-weighted, and gains the asset of not having the weight of a power-steering pump. The car responds precisely and steering is razor-sharp.

The 2011 Mustang has the additional benefit of the optional SYNC system Ford has worked out with Microsoft, allowing occupants to order their iPods and other devices around with voice commands. A neat feature that might be seen as a gimmick by many is the ability to alter the instrument lighting and the ambient lighting by changing color at the touch of a button. Do you like red, blue, green, purple, orange, or what? Hit the switch and change it by the hour, if you so choose.

Cynics who are looking for nitpicks might point out that the rear seat is useful for very small children at best. I don’t see it as a problem. If nobody is riding back there, you just have fewer witnesses to hear you grumbling about the blasted skip-shift.

Philemon Kemboi about to make 3rd-to-1st burst to win Grandma's.

The question “Which Kenyan will win this year?” was far more than just cynical rhetoric at the 34th annual Grandma’s Marathon, but while Duluth’s biggest sports event followed a familiar theme, the 2010 Grandma’s will always be remembered with sadness.

Not because of the marathon itself, where the three top runners — all from Kenya, and all making their first visits to Duluth — turned the race into their own personal duel. By the time the trio reached the cobblestone area of downtown Superior Street, Chris Kipyego and David Rutoh were shoulder to shoulder, sizing each other up while planning their own finishing strategy. But as the course enters its final mile, turning left down Fifth Avenue West toward the harbor, Philemon Kemboi caught his countrymen by surprise, passing them both, and winning his first-ever marathon.

Kemboi simply outran his foes after his third-to-first burst, and broke the Canal Park finish line banner in 2 hours, 15 minutes, 44 seconds for the 26.2 miles, for Kenya’s 10th victory in the last 15 Grandma’s Marathons. Kenya runners swept the top five places and nine of the top 10. Kemboi’s winning time of 2 hours, 15 minutes, 44 seconds beat Kipyego by 16 seconds, with Rutoh three seconds back in third. Kenyans Kipyegon Kirui and Kennedy Kemei were fourth and fifth. Sixth was Christopher Raabe, the Minnesota native who was a surprise winner last year, and following Raabe, who now lives in Washington, D.C., were four more Kenyans, as the prolific runners from the East African nation were the class of over 5,620 finishers.

Philemon Kemboi after winning his first marathon.

It was the 10th time in the last 15 years that a Kenyan had won Grandma’s, a race that has become a popular method to improve the standard of living for the families of those East African nation’s elite runners. “It was the biggest race I’ve ever won,” said Kemboi, who earned $10,900 for his first-ever marathon victory. “I will go home…and I will go to the bank. I feel good about being able to help my family’s life to improve.”

Starting at the same Two Harbors location and 7:30 a.m. time, the women’s segment was won easily by Buzunesh Deba from Ethiopia, who simply sped away from the start, disappeared over the horizon from the rest of her female competitors, and recorded a 2:31:36 time to beat fellow-Ethiopian Yeshimebet Bifa by almost four full minutes.

Buzunesh Deba easily won the women's race.

Deba moved from Ethiopia to New York four years ago, and said watching the New York Marathon in 2008 caused her to decide to become a distance runner. After competing in shorter 5K and 10K races, she started in marathons only last fall. “The first marathon I entered I won,” she said. Her winning time in the California International Marathon was 2:32:17, and after running seventh in the New York Marathon, she sped into 2010 by winning the National Marathon to Fight Breast Cancer in Florida with a time of 2:33:08. So her 2:31:36 in Grandma’s was her personal best.

“My plan was to start fast and try to get ahead,” she said, laughing herself at such obvious strategy — which she made work. She was alone by the 5-mile mark, and nobody else ever got within view of her. Mary Akor, who had won the last three Grandma’s, finished fourth, behind the top two Ethiopians, and Everlyne Lagat. Akor, 33, has suffered with recent illness that is scheduled for surgery in the near future, had to yield to the youthful Deba, who is 22, and Bifa, 21.

The 20th Annual Garry Bjorklund Half-Marathon started at 6:30 a.m., an hour before the full-marathon, and was won by Stephen Muange of Kenya, who won a close men’s segment with a 1:04:24, three seconds ahead of Bado Worku, an Ethiopian, who was closely followed by countrymen Derese Deniboba Rashaw and Worku Beyl. Ethiopians also finished 1-2 among women, as Caroline Rotich ran a 1:12:40, nearly two minutes ahead of Alemtsehay Misganaw.

That half-marathon will always be denoted by tragedy, however, as the first fatality in the long history of Grandma’s was recorded. Norman Ruth, 64, a novice runner from Hermantown, suffered an apparent heart attack while finishing the half-marathon. He was treated at the medical tent near the finish, and hospitalized, but didn’t recover. Dr. Ben Nelson, serving his first race as medical director, said he met with race officials and it was decided to release only an early-evening statement on race day that a half-marathon runner had died. In sympathy for the family, Dr. Nelson said, no other information would be released, so the victim’s identity, place of residence, and even gender were not disclosed until the following day.

It was a shocking irony on a day with temperatures in the mid-60s, about 20 degrees cooler than the year before, when many runners were affected by the heat and high humidity. Dr. Nelson said in this year’s full and half marathons combined, only 230 runners required some medical attention, and only four from the finish-line tent and three others from out on the course were sent to hospitals for treatment.

Whether by design or not, failing to disclose the information on race-day left the full focus solely on the full-marathon and its accompanying festivities. Participants and observers had no idea of the tragedy until they heard about it on the 10 p.m. news.

Kenyans had won nine of 13 Grandma’s full-marathons before Raabe won last year. Raabe, who now lives in Washington, D.C., ran among the leaders this year, too, and his sixth place was the only intrusion amid Kenya’s top nine finishers.

The three front-runners made their move to pull away came after 23 miles, and by the time they glided off London Road and onto Superior Street, they were alone. But there was still room for the final surprise. Kipyego had run against Rutoh before, but didn’t know Kemboi. Kipyego said he had turned to Rutoh and said, “I told this guy, ‘Let’s push, let’s push.’ I told him it was time to break away. I was expecting him, if anyone, to be the one to go for the lead. I didn’t know who this other guy was. When he went by us, I tried hard to close the gap, but he was very strong for me. I started thinking, ‘Is HE going to win the race?’ ”

Chris Kipyego, left, and David Rutoh led eventual winner Philemon Kemboi along Superior Street.

Kemboi, 36, whose best previous marathon time of 2:10:58 was good for only a fifth-place finish in France last year, was loping along behind Kipyego, 36, and Rutoh, 24. Kemboi is taller than most other Kenyans, at 5-foot-8 and 120 pounds, and when he made his move turning down Fifth Avenue West, he stretched out his long legs to outrun Kipyego by 16 seconds, with Rutoh three more seconds back in third.

Despite his comparative inexperience, he said, “I thought I could win it.” His top rivals were less convinced. Kemboi, speaking only his native Swahili via an interpreter, said he went along with Kipyego and Rutoh, his two countrymen, when they moved away from the pack. “It wasn’t a bad pace,” Kemboi said. “But when they decided to push forward, I was in agreement that we needed to pick up the pace.”

Despite the cooler conditions, the full marathon didn’t threaten any records. Kemboi’s winning time was far off the record established by Minnesotan Dick Beardsley in 1981 — a 2:09:37 in the fifth year of the event. In fact, Kemboi’s 2:15:44 was a half-minute off last year’s winning pace, when Raabe won at 2:15:13. But the victory was a breakthrough for Kemboi.

A late starter in competitive running, Kemboi had grown up on a family farm near Kapsabet, about seven hours drive from Nairobi. His family never had a car, he said, and when he realized he could help his family by earning money in distance running, he started seriously training in 2004. Calf injuries hindered him for a couple of years, so he had only entered three previous marathons.

Kipyego said Grandma’s is unlike other major marathons, which he suspects limit the number of Kenya runners invited. There were 27 at Grandma’s. “I saw the list, with so many Kenyans, and I thought, ‘This will be fun,’ ” said Kipyego, He said his sister, Sally, became a top NCAA runner at Texas Tech after growing up running to keep up with her big brother.

In Minnesota, as in the rest of the U.S., many youngsters are driven six blocks to playgrounds or other facilities, a fact Kipyego found amusing. In Kenya, a far different lifestyle makes their running ability natural, because of their far-different lifestyle from childhood. “We had no cars, no buses, and there were no roads,” said Kipyego, who is from Eldoret. “School was five kilometers away, and there was no school bus. We’d run to school in the morning, run home for lunch, then run back to school, and then run home, every day.”

That is a common thread among the Kenyan runners. Kemboi said he, too, ran from the family farm to school, but it was only one kilometer. Hardly proper training for an elite marathon runner. But if 36 makes him a late-bloomer, his victory can be a springboard to more marathon invitations.

With so much focus on the Minnesota Twins and the wonders of outdoor baseball in their new Target Field, one additional feature is worth mentioning: The unmatched “crack” that occurs and resonates when a hardwood bat strikes a horsehide-wrapped baseball.  Until this season, the only sounds high school or college or youth baseball fans could hear outside for three decades was the “tink” of an aluminum alloy bat as it struck the same horsehide sphere.

We’ve been blessed with a gentle March and April this year, and the “tink” of aluminum bats striking baseballs has been common once again throughout the state at high school and college games. Maybe the sound is even more dramatic if you head up I-35 to Duluth, where such a mild spring is flat out astonishing.

A  lot of pitched baseballs have become blurs as they zipped off those alloy bats when St. Scholastica filled Wade Stadium with the pings and tinks of solid hits. The same thing happened up at UMD, where the Bulldogs battled through Northern Sun games, plinking shots all over the field.

Thanks to Target Field, the sound of Major Leaguers like A.J. Pierzinski hitting with a wood bat has returned to Minnesota's outdoor scene.

Softball has used aluminum bats for a few decades now, and even though softballs are misnamed, because they are so hard that it’s amazing more people don’t get bruised from playing infield with such short bases. Softball got metal bat-makers to launch baseball into a netherworld of technology that has made a serious impact on all levels short of the pros.

St.  Scholastica has gone on to win its 14th straight UMAC title, spraying line drives off those ultra-high tech alloy bats. We might pause, however, and wonder how long that will continue.  Consider amateur baseball. Alloy bats also had taken over in senior men’s baseball, wher,  in the Twin Cities area, there are four different leagues for 35-and-over players of real-baseball, who refuse to give up the fun of baseball at any age.

Participating in those leagues makes the technical advances easier to trace. I can still remember as a kid, the sting caused by hitting an inside pitch on one of those frigid, early-spring days declared as the high school baseball season in Duluth. Those usually comfortable Louisville Slugger orAdirondack wood bats could sting your hands pretty good at 40 degrees. You could break a bat, and replace it for about $10, which was nice, but when metal bats came in,  the savings were impressive. The sound was annoying at first, but it grew to have a distinct resonance, even if it couldn’t possibly match that “crack” of wood bats. Still, they’d never break, which made up for the lack of feel, and that lack of feel also meant the lack of sting when it was cold.

In the Over-35 leagues, there young pups who had never used wood bats, because metal bats have been there since they were kids. Along the way, bat companies such as Easton, Louisville, Worth, and others, pretty much refined their product almost by the year, and raised their prices accordingly. They reached a perfect balance, I thought, at the level numbered “C-405,” I thought. They felt good, the balls came off them a little quicker than wood, but never dangerously heightened in velocity.

Then, however, the companies realized they could make more money by making better bats out of higher-tech alloys, which they had been doing for years in softball. Various baseball leagues around the country didn’t notice at first, but those of us playing did. As the code numbers of alloys rose, and the prices skyrocketed, bats that were made of what I call “unobtainium” became the norm. On my team in the Twin Cities, good, solid ballplayers asked me if I’d place them anywhere but third base, because balls were whizzing at them too fast to react to. I ended up playing third myself, sometimes by default, when my shortstop range seemed to go away faster than my reaction times.

At league meetings, I entered a motion to consider limiting the alloy’s pop by seeking a restriction at that C-405 level — bats that every team already had, costing about $100 apiece, and which lasted forever. Those bats didn’t scare fielders away with concern over velocity, which became significant the way pitches zapped off the high-grade, aircraft-quality alloy. I was shouted down by a vocal minority, guys who had invested $400 in their trick bats, and wanted to keep using them.

My reasoning was based on safety as well as fairness. If a pitch will ricochet off a bat with increasing velocity depending on how exotic the metal is, we would all be better off with a safe and inexpensive alternative, and nobody should be able to purchase a personal advantage simply by spending more for the latest and most sophisticated bat. Sticking with the C-405 alloy would, as they say, level the playing field.

Perfectly balanced, high-tech alloys reach the possibly dangerous level of 'unobtainium.'

A pretty good controversy followed, leading to a split in one league by nearly half the teams, when the main part of the league decided to switch to wood bats. The rebels wanted to keep using metal bats, and the issue came up again when my team went with them, and I pursued my motion to try to outlaw the costliest unobtainium weapons in the newly formed league. One other manager suggested that if I was afraid to play third base, I should get out of the game. That’s what happens when the 35-year-olds seem to get younger every year. I replied that I was making the motion to lessen the potency of the bats — as well as the cost — before someone got seriously injured. I went so far as to claim that as soon as we had a serious injury, we would see things more reasonably but it would be too late.  I lost, however, so we played on.

That season, a team managed by an adamant supporter of the highest-tech bats  was playing when an opponent armed with one of those unobtainium weapons hit a rocket down the first base line. The first baseman tried to throw his glove up, but the ball deflected off the top of his web and hit him flush in the eye. He was rushed to a hospital and, after lengthy hospitalization for repeated surgeries, his vision has never recovered fully. The manager was transformed overnight, suddenly leading the charge to switch to wood bats immediately.

Interestingly, a good wood bat now costs from $30 to $90. There are a couple of companies that make them in Minnesota. Max Bats are proliferating even up to the major league level. Lambrecht Bats are another company, made by a fellow who used to play in the Over-35 league, and now makes bats that hang in the converted garage at his farmland south of Jordan. He makes bats of varying styles and sizes, out of ash, the staple of baseball bats for a century, or out of stronger maple. He has some made of birch, which has odd grain, but is also stronger than ash. To me, each one is a work of art, and I’ve gone to his place several times just to heft and grip and swing a variety of his wares before selecting some.

It can get expensive, using wood bats. One player who joined our team in midseason, borrowed and broke bats with his first three swings. Players used to aluminum have to learn to hit the ball on the barrel, if possible, and to hold the trademark in a position so the ball hits properly on the grain. But over the past two seasons, the teams have adapted well. In fact, it’s a more enjoyable game when every hit is less than a rocket. Balls are hit for less distance, and put much more of a premium on pitching and defense. Plus, we are back to realizing how fantastic that “crack” of the bat sound is.

St. Scholastica's Chad Peterson sent the sound of alloy-on-horsehide resonating around Wade Stadium with a base hit during the Saints UMAC tournament.

College and high school ball games are highly enjoyable, although the “ping” or “tink” of the super-trick aluminum bats sounds more unusual now that so many amateur leagues have switched to wood. There are quite a few home runs socked by teams such as UMD and St. Scholastica, which bolsters enthusiasm, and we can continue to hope that nobody on any team will get hit by one of those missiles.

The entire subject came to me anew when I spent a couple of days test-driving the new Ford Fiesta in the hills near San Francisco a few weeks ago. The San Francisco Chronicle carried a sports story that caught my eye. It said the North Coast Section high school baseball managers were meeting to determine whether to outlaw metal bats for the upcoming playoffs.

The reason for the movement is that on March 11, Marin Catholic-Kentfield pitcher Gunnar Sandberg, a sophomore, was critically injured after being hit in the head with a line drive. He was kept in a medically-induced coma for three weeks, and only recently got up and is walking, with assistance, in a San Francisco hospital. The Marin County Athletic League, where Marin Catholic plays, immediately banned metal bats for the rest of the season. The Bay Counties League West, which also plays in the North Coast Section, followed up and did the same. The Diamond Sports National Classic in Orange County — one of the largest spring tournaments in the nation — also banned metal bats.

The San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s donated more than 200 wood bats to Marin Catholic after Sandberg’s injury, and while wood bats might be hard to find in the area, the safety of high school athletes is foremost. Something like 76 teams could suddenly need a supply of wood bats is league officials agree to such a ruling. It would be for this spring’s tournament only, although legislation by the National Federation of State High School Associations would be closely monitoring it. It is more than just possible that a three-year ban will follow, leading to permanent bans on non-wood bats.

I’m sure there also have been some serious injuries in Minnesota as well, I just haven’t seen them chronicled. I would welcome anyone who knows of any to send me an email notification ( jg7@jwgilbert.com). If there haven’t been any — good. But we’re dealing with what appears to be an inevitability.

Enjoyable as it’s been, watching teams in college or high school swing hard and, with a resounding “tink,” rifle those blurred laser hits so impressively, I will try to store the sound of those sophisticated metal bats in my memory bank. Because wood bats are going to come back to high school and college baseball — in California first, maybe, but around the country, and here in due time. And we’ll all be better off when those $400 unobtainium bats are, well…unobtainable.

A Fiesta 5-door hit the wet autocross.

If Ford is correct, consumers in the United States have successfully conquered their previously-insatiable thirst for large cars and trucks, and will be taking a giant step by going small.

The theory is that in 2002, there were 23 million vehicles purchased from the small-car segment, and by 2012, there will be 38 million. While always producing cars for that segment in the U.S., and more and better small cars for European markets, Ford is unleashing a new two-pronged attack with the soon-to-come global Focus renovation, and the just-arriving Fiesta. The Fiesta is aimed at the smaller end of the segment, smaller than Focus, but the new car is bristling with new tricks that promise performance, fuel economy (up to 40 mpg), good handlling, impressive looks, adequate compact roominess, and great pricing — everything the modern U.S. consumer/family could want.

Who are we to question Ford — the only U.S. auto manufacturer that had enough foresight, and acted on it, so that it didn’t need government tax dollars for bailout loans in order to stay in business. In the past year, while arch-rival General Motors and Chrysler have been scrambling to regain their equilibrium, Ford has brought a series of cars, trucks, and technologically advanced ideas to the marketplace, with the new Taurus, the improved Fusion including the hybrid, the upgraded Mustang, the Flex wagon, and the new F-150, as well as the Transit Connect, and a flock of new engines, plus such things as EcoBoost, which offers meaningful performance upgrades without denting fuel efficiency via turbocharging.

Many consumers might remember the Fiesta when Ford brought it in after great success in the small-car-conscious European market. It was a tough little car, fun to drive even then, and very economical. Cheap gas and the popularity of large vehicles caused Ford to quit bringing in the Fiesta, but it kept selling in Europe. Last year, Ford sold 750,000 Fiestas globally, and it passed the Volkswagen Golf in European sales.

Candlestick Park outlines the Fiesta Hatchback.

The U.S. market is different, however. We’ve grown away from small cars, despite economic and environmental reasons that we should be clamoring for the return. Simple things like gas mileage are greatly dependent on light weight, fun-to-drive handling depends a lot on agility, another weight-related virtue, and strong performance can be obtained from a small engine, if the vehicle is light enough. The Fiesta scores on all these counts.

In aiming at the U.S., Ford will bring in the popular 4-door hatchback (5-door?), and it is adding a specific 4-door sedan, with a neatly sloping rear roofline — just in case there is any factual basis to the theory of U.S. buyers not being enamored with hatchbacks. Frankly, I like the silhouette of the sedan, which looks similar to the sweeping lines of the new Mazda6, but there is no question the hatchback offers the versatility that lures customers around the rest of the world.

The sleeker sedan, left, joins the hatchback.

With the bottom line as a prime objective, Ford is pricing the 4-door-sedan at a base $13,995, and the hatchback at a base of $15,795. That makes it competitive with the Honda Fit.

Driving hard through the mountainous roadways near San Francisco, up and back to Half Moon Bay, the Fiesta had plenty of pep, and its advanced electric steering was sure-feeling and made it easy to carve precise lines around the tightest curves. The standard 5-speed manual transmission handles the small, 1.6-liter 4-cylinder engine very well, although it led me to an easy question: Why no 6-speed manual? Ford’s answer was that it was the same transmission used globally.

Then we switched to the automatic version, and there is no doubt that the PowerShift automatic was designed to make the perfect fit with the Fiesta and its powerplant. It is not just an automatic, but an all-new sequential-manual. This system, designed by transmission specialist Getrag, has an enclosed transmission that actually has two clutches inside. One of them activates first-third-fifth, and the second handles second-fourth-sixth. When you accelerate, the transmission’s electro-mechanical actuators shift with fluid smoothness, because it simply changes which clutch is engaged.

Sophisticated road-racing cars went to sequential manuals, because the computerized device can shift in a couple of milliseconds, much quicker than an expert can shift a stick with a clutch. Audi introduced and perfected the first real-world DSG (direct-sequential manual) for the A4, A3, TT, and the same unit is also used by Audi parent Volkswagen for the Golf GTI, and for both the new Golf and Jetta TDI turbo-diesel models, and it was added to replace the Tiptronic in the CC for 2010. Mitsubishi also has an outstanding sequential-manual for the Lancer and Evolution, and the Outlander crossover SUV. Porsche, with its long-awaited PDK, uses the same technique, and BMW has revised its transmission for similar effect.

The slick idea of a sequential-manual led me to my second serious question about the 2011 Fiesta: Why is there no manual override on the shift lever, and more important, why are there no steering-wheel shift paddles to allow the driver the sheer joy of manually choosing gears to bring the Fiesta to true, sporting optimum? Ford said its market research didn’t show a great demand for manual operation of the PowerShift, but my response was that is what truly amplifies what is best with the Audi, VW, Porsche, Mitsubishi, and BMW clutchless-manuals.

The question of “Who are we to question Ford?” answered itself, when I continued to ask different engineers why there aren’t paddles, until finally one of them said, “Not yet.” That was more encouraging than the fluff that nobody wants them, anyway.

Ford stressed that the Fiesta will compete most directly with the Honda Fit, and adds the Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, Mini Cooper, and also the larger Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. Ford has to be careful here, of course, because once they tie in the Civic and Corolla, they’re invading Focus territory, which would beg the question: Fiesta or Focus?

For the U.S., the sedan adds another look.

In competitive driving, the Fit was the primary target, and Ford claims better fuel economy, more power, quieter operation, and better handling, and we all gathered in the parking lot of Candlestick Park — where the San Francisco Giants used to play — and we played on a high-speed slalom course and on a cone-lined autocross circuit. Both of those sessions featured some sudden and heavy thunderstorms that rolled in off the ocean and forced us to drive through some serious puddles.

Strangely enough, for our group the only Fiestas there were stick-shift models, although it seemed to be a perfect setting to see the PowerShift go through its maximum paces. Without question, the Fiesta did the job, although the autocross was best mastered by accelerating hard at the start, hitting second, and simply leaving the stick in second while thrashing around the twists and turns.

I must say, though, that while the Fit leaned more in turns, the steering-wheel paddles in the Fit are what makes it such a popular small car for customers who want a little sporty feel with their economy. My opinion is that the presence of paddles will be an asset for the Fit and not having them will be a potential deal-breaker for comparison Fit-Fiesta shoppers.

However, by the time we got through the mountain driving, I was less intense about my paddle question. The PowerShift works very well on upshifts, which is no surprise, but it works surprisingly well in downshifting, too. We had driven up one particularly twisty section, and we came back down the same way. Having driven it only once, I was looking forward to that downhill hairpin, and I admit I went into it too hot. Not too hot for my driving, or the car’s suspension, which is what I was trying to test in that turn, but too hot for the Fiesta’s computerized controller, which downshifted the PowerShift two gears, throttle-blips and all. It was impressive, almost as though the car was saying, “What the heck is this guy doing? Oh well, we’ll save him.”

You can hate it when cars are smarter than the drivers, but this was impressive, and could be a factor in the devices potential sales. The transmission is scarcely larger than the 5-speed manual, and is the same size as the outgoing 4-speed, while boasting wide ratios that attain maximum fuel economy with two overdrives, in fifth and sixth. That led me to yet another question: Is Ford the first company to offer a 6-speed automatic but only a 5-speed stick? Nobody was certain. But it is an oddity.

The 1.6-liter engine has modest numbers, with only 120 horsepower and 112 foot-pounds of torque, but Ford again has proven that technology can overcome meager numbers. Ti-VCT, which is “twin independent variable cam timing” adjusts the intake and exhaust valves depending on driver demand and load. The snappy performance shows the merit of such technology, and the misleading nature of the statistical numbers.

Steve Pinta, chief engineer of the North America Fiesta, explained that the car’s light weight was achieved by using 55 percent high-strength steel, including ultra-high boron steel in the front A pillars and the side door sills. High-grade steel provides better strength even with less steel, improving both weight and safety. Seven airbags, including a driver knee bag, adds to the safety, as does the standard-issue AdvanceTrac with stability control. For interior quiet, acoustic improvements to the windshield, pillars, headliner, front and rear doors, floor, and door seals give the Fiesta the secure feel of a larger, heavier car.

A Fiesta option is direct-sequential shifting.

Handling is conquered by front struts, a rear twist-beam axle, stabilizer bars, and a couple of features called drift-pull, which alters torque to help straighten out a wayward car, and anti-nibble cancellation, which counters the tendency to feel twitchy in cornering. That’s in addition to the electric steering system.

Ford claims that people making over $100,000 a year in salary are the new breed of small-car buyers, and of considerable interest to new and younger buyers are things like mobile device interaction. Ford, of course, answers with its uniquely impressive Sync system of interactive electronic devices. The Fiesta interacrts with Apple Link and Blackberrys, and uses Smart Apps to allow coive control and touch-screen handiness. Ford also anticipates more and better website applications to create the optimum mobuile application environment.

Striking looks, outlandish colors like lime green among the nine available colors, with seven different interior lights, and, if you choose leather interior, three different leather colors.

Whether you consider such features as gimmicks, and prefer quick engines, advanced transmissions and great handling, Ford stresses that the cohesiveness of all those ideas are what sets the Fiesta above the competition. Altogether, they make the Fiesta a very impressive choice — even for those among us who are waiting for the “not yet” addition of paddle-shifters.

UMD's players joyfully hoisted their trophy for winning the 2010 NCAA women's hockey championship.

Something called the “USA Hockey/USA Today” weekly rating of women’s college hockey teams came out on the week of March 22 with the bold proclamation that it had named the University of Minnesota-Duluth No. 1 — by unanimous vote of all its voters. Nice try, folks. A little late, but nice of you to notice.

UMD (31-8-2) outlasted Cornell (21-9-6) in a championship game worthy of a time capsule, skating through almost two full games before freshman Jessica Wong’s deflection goal gave the Bulldogs a 3-2 victory in the final minute of the third overtime period.  Coach Shannon Miller’s amazing Bulldogs captured their fifth NCAA championship, after outshooting Cornell 64-51 in the extremely close, up-and-down duel.

It extended WCHA mastery over all 10 NCAA tournaments, because along with UMD’s five, Wisconsin has won three and Minnesota two national titles. But Miller said this one stands above all the others, which were won by exceptional teams that often overran foes with great talent. This team was a youthful underdog from the start.

“I told the players this was the most special team I’ve ever coached,” said Miller, who also predicted to a staff member between overtimes that she figured Wong would score the winner. “I thought getting into the top eight in the country, and staying there, would be a great goal. And if we could make the NCAA field, we’re really good in one game. We’ve upset good teams all season.

“I know Cornell had never been to ‘the dance’ before, but we’re the Cinderella story this year. With five Olympians gone from our team, we’re playing with 13 scholarship players against teams that have 18.”

A week ago, Mercyhurst was No. 1, for the 22nd consecutive week, and while UMD was second, Minnesota third and Cornell fourth — coincidentally, the four teams that made the Frozen Four.  Mercyhurst was the unanimous No. 1 on the ballots of all 19 voters. Two weeks earlier, Cornell had been ranked No. 8, but after the Big Red won enough upsets to reach the Frozen Four, the voters seek to avoid embarrassment by ranking the four finalists the top four spots. So Cornell was fourth, behind Mercyhurst, UMD and Minnesota.

Once the Frozen Four opened in Ridder Arena in Minneapolis, Cornell upset Mercyhurst 3-2 in the semifinals. Then UMD defeated host Minnesota, also by 3-2.

That created a UMD-Cornell final, and UMD defeated the Big Red 3-2 in a triple-overtime classic. Not “just” a women’s hockey game, to be ignored by all those macho men’s hockey fans who turn up their noses at the women’s game, but a fantasy game come to life in the NCAA Women’s final. As for the ratings folks, politics reigns supreme. Before the season started, Wisconsin was No. 1, only because the Badgers had won last year’s NCAA title. But one week into the season, Bemidji State beat Wisconsin and Mercyhurst rose to No. 1 and stayed there. The voters proceeded to ignore the fact that the WCHA is far tougher, from top to bottom, than any other conference, so it overlooked the stretch of several weeks when Minnesota was the best team in the country.

When UMD put together an incredible run that measured only one loss in its last 21 games dating back to the first weekend in December, and won its final nine consecutively, including two late-season victories over Minnesota, and another triumph over the Gophers in the WCHA playoff final, the voters acquiesced to put the Bulldogs up into second.

If the USA Hockey/USA Today types had any class, they would not insult our intelligence by coming out with a post-tournament “final” rating that assumes relevance for duplicating the finishing order of the Frozen Four. The voters should put the ratings plan aside until next fall, rather than display their own prejudices by having to rank the finalists 1-2 after not giving them any top-rank credit throughout the season.

But enough of that. The final game should be free of such petty politics while being put away in a time capsule.

UMD's freshman goaltender Jennifer Harss withstood a Cornell attack through the equivalent of two full games.

Cornell, a team that had never ventured so far into NCAA tournament time, went up against a UMD team that had 10 freshmen on the roster, seven skaters and all three goaltenders. Two Cinderellas, for very different reasons. The Bulldogs won the championship, but it wasn’t just another national championship game, or another 3-2 game. It was the longest game in NCAA Frozen Four history, and it was evidence of how scintillating high-stakes women’s collegiate hockey has become. It ended only when Wong deflected a right-point shot by Tara Gray past Cornell goaltender Amanda Mazzotta, who was trying for her 62nd save on the play, at 19:26 of the third 20-minute overtime. UMD won the 3-2 victory exactly 33.6 seconds short of what would have equalled two complete games.

UMD’s fifth national championship continues one of the more amazing stories in sports. Since starting the UMD program 11 years ago, a year before  the NCAA decided to sanction a women’s hockey tournament 10 years ago, coach Miller guided UMD teams to the first three NCAA titles, added a fourth in 2008, and now has won five of the 10 NCAA Women’s hockey championships that have been held. The first four UMD title teams shared a similarity — they were powerhouse outfits that had their sights on the NCAA’s big trophy all through those seasons. Superstars such as Jenny Potter and Maria Rooth and Caroline Ouellette led those talent-filled teams to those titles, and all three of them remain among the very best players on their U.S., Sweden, and Canada Olympic teams, respectively.

This season was markedly different for UMD, even though eight players from that 2008 title team were back. Five other returning veterans took a year off to skate with the Swedish and Canadian Olympic teams all season. Miller brought 10 freshmen aboard for this term, and she notified them from the start that they’d have to “play like juniors” to fill the void left by those centralized Olympians, who will return next season.

Miller might have established herself as, without a doubt, the craftiest coach in women’s hockey because she had something she might never have again — a  genuine underdog at the start of the season. An eternal optimist, Miller went at her task aggressively but with reasonably modest objectives.  They started 6-5, then 12-7, to get into December, deservedly behind those top-ranked teams up ahead, even though they split at Mercyhurst early.

It helped Miller that the four senior regulars — Saara Tuominen, Emmanuelle Blais, and defensemen Jaime Rasmussen and Sarah Murray — all turned into perfect role models for the freshmen. Kristi Hakala transfered back from Wisconsin-Superior for her senior year and helped, too, in a spare defenseman post. It helped further that the freshmen came of age rapidly, improving by enormous leaps all season.

UMD lost a game at Wisconsin on Friday,  December 4, to create that 12-7 plateau for the season, which was both mediocre and expected, by Miller.  The Bulldogs came back to tie Wisconsin on Sunday, December 6, in Madison, and won a shootout. Nobody, not even Miller, could envision what would unfold after that. The Bulldogs lost only one of their remaining 21 games, with the lone loss in that 19-1-1 stretch coming against an onrushing Ohio State team. By then, it only served as a rallying cry, as UMD regrouped to win its final nine games.

The Bulldogs had to conquer Minnesota 3-2 to win the WCHA playoff final, and beat the Golden Gophers for the fourth straight time in the NCAA semifinals, while Cornell eliminated Mercyhurst. In the finale, Cornell played its best, with Melanie Jue scoring both goals, and Mazzotta making 61 saves. Cornell proved to be a mighty foe, and held a 1-0 lead, but Miller herself came through to bring it all together.

She juggled lines during the game, she shortened the bench to two lines, and when it became evident that it would turn into an endurance contest, she went back to spotting her youthful third line, making sure that her most veteran defensemen, Rasmussen and Jocelyne Larocque, was out with that line at crucial times.

Defenseman Jaime Rasmussen moved up to convert a pass from Saara Tuominen for UMD's first goal.

Her seniors came through in the third period. Faced with the 1-0 deficit, Blais scored her third goal of the weekend, and her 32nd goal of a brilliant senior season, assisted by fellow-seniors Tuominen and Rasmussen. Then Rasmussen came through, moving up from the point the way Miller has always allowed her to do, and blasting in a pass across the slot from Tuominen for a 2-1 UMD lead. When victory seemed certain, Cornell came back for Jue’s second goal, with 3:30 remaining, and tied it 2-2.

When overtime started, UMD freshman goalie Jennifer Harss held the 2-2 tie, and nobody knew they would go on to play  three more 20-minute periods. Miller, always one step ahead of the fluctuating waves of game action, went to work with her favorite visual imaging bits — psycho cybernetics, some call it.

“After the first overtime, I told the players to imagine scoring the winning goal,” Miller said. “Imagine throwing your gloves and stick in the air and jumping into a pile of players. After the second overtime, I asked them to imagine carrying the trophy around the rink after winning, and ‘you’ll find strength you never knew you had.’ ”

I asked her, as the final minute of the third overtime ticked away, if she had anything cooked up for the intermission after the third overtime. “I was running out of things to say,” she laughed.

Wong, who scored her 13th goal of the season when UMD beat Minnesota 3-2 for the league playoff title, and scored her 14th goal of the season as the game-winner in the 2-1 NCAA quarterfinal victory over New Hampshire at the DECC a week earlier, saved her 15th goal for the moment when the Ridder Arena clock was ticking down, and Tara Gray was winding up at the point, with Blais and Wong both in front. “We had a double screen,” said Wong, “and I was saying to myself, ‘Tara, shoot the puck!’ I saw it coming all the way, and I got a piece of it with my stick blade.”

The puck glanced down and through Mazzotta’s pads, and UMD’s bench erupted. Exhausted or not, the Bulldogs had eclipsed the previous record for the longest women’s Frozen Four game ever, previously set by UMD beating Harvard 4-3 at 4:19 of the second sudden-death overtime at the DECC in Duluth in the 2003 title game. But this one, before 1,473 fans at Ridder Arena, may be a difficult record to better, being only 33.6 seconds short of being two complete games.

Jessica Wong (49) was engulfed after deflecting the puck into the Cornell goal in the final minute of the third overtime for UMD's 3-2 victory.

Cornell had three freshmen playing compared to UMD’s eight, but the Bulldog freshmen gave UMD enough depth to skate a third line, and Miller’s judicious use of that third unit wore down the Big Red, which relied almost completely on two forward lines. “It was a great game, and I want to congratulate Shannon and Minnesota-Duluth,” said Cornell coach Doug Derraugh, whose team broke a scoreless tie on Jue’s first goal, a power-play marker 13:44 into the second period. “I’m also very plesed with my team. We’ve had a blast here, and I played 14 yearrs of pro hockey, but I’ve never been prouder of a team or seen a team with more heart.”

Blais rushed from the left for a shot that was blocked, but she followed up with another shot for a power-play equalizer at 0:18 of the third. The goal gave Blais an astounding finish, with six goals and six assists in her last five games, and 32-33—64 for the season. She earned most valuable player awards for both the NCAA Frozen Four and the WCHA Final Faceoff tournament, and was first-team All-America. The only slight was another tradition for UMD — Blais was among the final 10 candidates for USA Hockey’s Patty Kazmaier award, but, joining such liminaries as Potter, Rooth and Ouellette, Blais not only didn’t win, she didn’t make the final three. It was won by Melanie Benduis of Mercyhurst.

For Blais, who transformed herself from a spectacularly skilled but individually focused player to a consummate team player this season, such an award would have been perfect justification. Instead, her own dedicated play through the playoff stretch was her Olympics, and her own Kazmaier.

“When we won the WCHA playoffs and I got the MVP, I obviously was happy, and now this,” said Blais. “But I am focused so much on my team. This has been the best year of my life.”

Before the game, it was interesting to watch the pregame introductions, and notice Tuominen, looking carefully up into the stands at the rafters, at the fans, at Cornell’s players, at her teammates. She appeared to be taking in all the sensory things that would fit into her memory bank about her last collegiate game. She would later talke about the special year she had, departing to help Finland win the Olympic bronze medal in Vancouver, and then coming back to assist on both regulation UMD goals in the championship game.

Cornell traded rushes with the speedy Bulldogs throughout the game, and had a 30-28 edge in shots when the third period ended. UMD had a slight edge, at 12-11, through the first overtime, then outshot the Big Red 10-4 in the second overtime, and 14-6 in the third. A pivotal difference was when Miller went from matching two lines against Cornell’s two lines, using Tuominen between Blais and Laura Fridfinnson, and an all-freshman unit with Katie Wilson centering Audrey Cournoyer and Wong. As the game went to overtime, and it was clear both teams were slowing down as exhaustion sapped their strength, Miller started inserting the third line of Gina Dodge between fellow-freshman Vanessa Thibault and hustling sophomore Kacy Ambroz.

“I gave them a clear job, to be good defensively on a very short shift, get the puck over the red line and get it in deep,” said Miller. “Then I told them, ‘OK, that was perfect,’ and I gave them longer shifts.”

Her players appreciated it. “I always want more ice time, but I was ready to be done,” said Blais, who had scored two goals and set up Laura Fridfinnson for the third in Friday’s 3-2 semifinal victory over Minnesota. “Thibault, Dodge and Ambroz gave us a tremendous lift, and I think that was a key in the game.”

Still, nothing was decided as the game went through the first, then the second, and deep into the third overtime. Lauriane Rougeau prevented a goal when she took down Fridfinnson to halt a breakaway, but she was penalized at 17:20. She came out of the penalty box and skated across the ice to the bench when UMD’s Mariia Posa, another freshman, worked the puck to Gray at the right point — 10 feet from the Cornell bench. “I saw her coming across the ice trying to get a change, and she got her stick under [Gray's] stick as she shot,” said Derraugh. As Rougeau fell, she nearly smothered the puck, but she got the shot away. And Wong deflected it into NCAA women’s hockey history.

“Even though we were freshmen, the seniors picked us up so much,” said Wong. “Every practice, I learned somethng new. Coach is amazing, and we improved so much.”

As for the visualization tactics, Blais said she was able to experience it, and she undoubtedly will remember the finish, after Gray’s shot zipped past her, and was then deflected by Wong. Then came the throwing of the sticks and gloves, and the pileup, just as they had visualized.

“All I remember is that there were a lot of people on me,” said Blais. “And my legs were really, really hurting.”

That pain will subside, and the sweet memories will remain forever. It’s a good thing the new DECC arena is being finished in time to open midway through next season. The UMD women’s Bulldogs need more room to expand the area where they can hang more banners — this time, the unexpected hat trick for WCHA season champions, WCHA playoff champions, and 2010 NCAA champions.

Jared Thompson scored on Mahtomedi goaltender Brad Wohlers at 1:12 of sudden-death overtime to lift Hermantown to a 7-6 victory in the Class A semifinals.

When the 2010 Minnesota state high school hockey tournament was over,  Edina was a very deserving Class AA champion, and Breck was a deserving winner in Class A. To get the most accurate slice of the big tournament’s greatest dramas, however, go back to the semifinal round in both classes at St. Paul’s Xcel Energy Center, when the title game losers both won the best games of the tournament.

To start the day, the best game of the entire tournament sent Hermantown against Mahtomedi in the first Class A semifinal for smaller schools. Hermantown had gotten past a hustling Virginia-Mountain Iron-Buhl team in the first round, by a narrow 2-1 score when Adam Krause, who had sed up Cody Christopherson for the game’s first goal, scored the winner. Krause, who is already committed to go to UMD on a hockey scholarship, rushed the puck after an outlet pass from Garrett Skrbich early in the third period, and rifled a 45-foot shot that beat goalie Casey Myhre high to the left corner. “I was at the end of a shift and I was tired,” said Krause. “I knew I couldn’t beat the defenseman, so I just tried to put it on net.”

Mahtomedi, led by a mercurial junior defenseman named Ben Marshall, had dispatched Alexandria 6-1 in the first round, and matched up well with Hermantown. We had no idea how well. Marshall opened the game with a rink-length dash for a 1-0 Mahtomedi lead, and when Chad Bannor tied it 1-1, Charlie Adams regained the Mahtomedi lead, only to have Jared Kolquist counter for a 2-2 standoff.  Adams, who was a scoring machine for the Zephyrs, made it 3-2 before Kolquist’s second goal made it 3-3 after two. The fun was just beginning. Mahtomedi’s Brandon Zurn ignited a crazy third period with a goal for the Zephyrs at 5:50, and Mike Rose made it 5-3 at 7:23. Charlie Comnick got one back for Hermantown at 8:14, cutting it to 5-4, but Zurn scored on another set-up by Marshall at 8:49, and, after three goals in 1:26, and four goals in one second less than three minutes, Mahtomedi had apparent control at 6-4.

Charlie Comnick's first of three goals were Hermantown's fourth, fifth and sixth to force an overtime at 6-6.

Comnick, however, took matters into his own hands when he scored on the rebound of a Thomas shot at 10:27, then positioned himself to deflect Jeff Paczynski’s power-play point shot down and in for a 6-6 tie at 11:18.

The teams stormed back and forth, trying to break the deadlock, and in a game that seemed to be decided by whoever had the puck last, the closing seconds belonged to Mahtomedi’s Marshall.  He raced up ice as the final seconds ticked down, cut to his right, and sent a neat pass to the slot. Adams, the master sniper, one-timed his shot. Hermantown goalie Tyler Ampe flicked his right arm up, and the puck glanced off his arm but continued its path high into the upper left corner of the net. The red light came on, but so did the horn sound. The clock said 0:00.0.

The Zephyrs, who have never reached a championship game, poured off the bench and mobbed each other in a special pile-up of players, while the Hawks stood around, pretty dejected. The officials, dutifully, went over to check with the upstairs video review official. It took a while, but the overhead view showed the  puck coming into the crease, sailing through the crease, and hitting the net. When they slowed it way down, and superimposed the digital clock, however, it also showed the clock hitting 0:00.02, then 0:00.01, and then 0:00.00 — with the puck still a few inches short of reaching the goal line. No goal. The Zephyrs were devastated, while the Hawks were flying again.

Hermantown goalie Tyler Ampe reacted as puck bounced back out of net after Charlie Rose Mahtomedi goal was disallowed at the buzzer.

“We didn’t know what to do, it hit us like a brick,” said Marshall. who led the charge in overtime, on what might have been the decisive rush. But the puck came adrift, and Commick, who already had a hat trick and one assist, dashed back the other way, up the right boards, for Hermantown. He threw a perfect, pinpoint pass to Thomas, breaking wide on the left. Thomas got past the defense and rushed at goalie Brad Wohlers, deking as though cutting to his right, then coming back to score with a forehand at the left edge. At 1:12 of overtime, Hermantown had won 7-6.

Jared Thomas hurtled into end boards crashed into end boards after his goal won 7-6 for Hermantown in overtime.

“Marshall carried it into our zone, but one of our ‘D’ poked the puck away,” said Thomas. “I curled, and saw Chuck [Charlie Comnick]. We made eye-contact and he gave me a perfect pass. Going in, I realized that Garrett Skrbich had gone to his backhand on an earlier breakaway and got stopped. So I went the other way.” And Hermantown went to the championship game.

The rest of semifinal Friday seemed dull by comparison. Breck overcame a 1-0 Warroad lead, fashioned on Brock Nelson’s remarkable first-period goal. Nelson, grandson of Warroad legend Billy Christian, who was in the building, was lurking on the right side of the net when Brett Hebel came at the net from the left. Hebel’s backhander hit goaltender Jon Russell and popped up in the air, heading for the right corner. Ah, but Nelson was waiting like Joe Mauer for a knee-high change-up, and he picked the puck out of the air,  lacing a line drive into the net. Breck, however, retaliated with three goals in the second period, two by Mike Morin, and made it 4-1 before Warroad got a late goal, to fall 4-2 to the defending champion Mustangs.

Then it was time for Class AA’s semifinals, and Edina polished off a stubborn Apple Valley outfit 2-0, but while the Hornets outshot Apple Valley 37-18, the game was devoid of any of the electricity of Hermantown’s opener. When top-ranked Minnetonka faced Hill-Murray in the second AA semifinal, the general topics of conversation were how interesting it was that the Class A teams seemed to have outstanding individuals leading the way, while the Class AA teams were much deeper and more balanced, but really lacked the star power of Class A. The other prime topic was how nothing could match the day’s first game and its wrenching last-second twist.

Connor Ryan scored on Hill-Murray goalie Tim Shaughnessy in the second overtime, but the Minnetonka goal had been directed in by Ryan's skate.

Hill-Murray, a very balanced and well-coached outfit, had knocked out Duluth East 5-3 in a first-round game. East jumped ahead 2-0 in the first period, then suffered a defensive-zone meltdown that lasted exactly two minutes — giving up two goals 9 seconds apart in the last minute of the first period, and two more goals 38 seconds apart in the first minute of the second period. The Greyhounds never got it back together, although they regrouped to beat Lakeville-North in the consolation round, and defeated Roseau 3-1 in the consolation final. Virginia, by the way, almost gave the Northland two consolation crowns, reboundng from its opening loss to Hermantown to beat New Ulm, before falling 2-0 to Rochester Lourdes in the consolation final.

Back at semifinal Friday, it was not a surprise that Hill-Murray harnessed the Greyhounds, especially after they did the same to Minnetonka’s explosive offense. The Skippers — seeking to ride the No. 1 rating and a one-loss season to their first-ever state title — got the first goal, when Andrew Prochno made a great move and scored form the right circle at 12:09. But Chris Casto smacked in a rebound at the other end four minutes later and the first period ended 1-1. The second period also ended 1-1, and so did the third period — and the first, second and third overtimes!

Minnetonka's Eric Baskin, top, after 4th OT goal beats Hill-Murray.

Most amazing is that Hill-Murray stifled Minnetonka with only 9 shots through three periods. I would have bet that the Minnesota Wild couldn’t have held the Skippers to 9 shots in three periods. It appeared that Connor Ryan had won the game for Minnetonka in the second overtime when he converted Tommy Lundquist’s hard pass from the right side. But the video review proved Ryan had turned his left skate to block the speeding puck and the ricochet zipped into the net. No goal. Kicked in. By the third overtime, they were alternating between 8-minute and 17-minute sessions, and it remained 1-1. They made ice again, and the fourth overtime began, at about 12:15 Saturday morning. At 2:31 of the session, Erik Baskin, coming from the left side, chased down the puck behind the Hill-Murray goal, and circled out on the right side with a sudden move, stuffing a shot that went in off goalie Tim Shaughnessy’s pads as he slid across. The goal gave Minnetonka a 2-1 victory and a berth in the AA championship game. True to its historic roots, semifinal Friday was the day of tournament classics.

On Saturday, Hermantown gave it a good run, but Breck got a lucky bounce off a shinpad to win the Class A title 2-1. Then Edina took out a talented but tired Minnetonka outfit, 4-2, for the AA championship. But if you had to pick a day for the archives as evidence for what makes Minnesota high school hockey the state’s best attraction, year in and year out, choose Friday.

Duluth East's circle salute to DECC fans after 5-1 7A victory over Elk River.

Duluth East’s hockey team came up with its finest hour at the 11th hour, jumping off to a 5-0 lead through two periods en route to a 5-1 victory over Elk River in the Section 7AA championship game at the DECC, which secured a slot in the state tournament. Once at St. Paul’s Xcel Energy Center, the Greyhounds will find some northern company, as Hermantown and Virginia-Mountain Iron-Buhl will join them, playing in the companion Class A tournament.

All three are solid state tournament candidates. Duluth East will face Hill-Murray in the 9 p.m. Thursday finale to the first day of Class AA tournament action, while in the A tournament, Hermantown faces Virginia-Mountain Iron-Buhl in Wednesday’s first round. Obviously, they both can’t advance, but on the other hand, one is assured of reaching Friday afternoon’s semifinals, and could be a threat to claim the Class A trophy.

The three championships were determined on consecutive nights, starting with the 7A final at the DECC on Wednesday night.

Garrett Hendrickson eludes Hibbing's Chase Anderson.

Hibbing was hopeful, but Virginia’s Blue Devils were strong, and they were ready. Casey Myhre was both good and lucky thrashing around in goal to gain the shutout, and Jordan Krebsbach’s first-period goal stood tall. Garrett Hendrickson, son of coach Keith Hendrickson, skated up the right and scored midway through the second period to make it 2-0, and Trey Carlson converted a neat pass for the 3-0 lead before the second intermission.

You had to enjoy the student cheering sections, which exchanged heckles that managed to be creative, lively and in good (enough) taste to be more amusing than insulting. Most teams, on through college, are supported by fans who think if they yell the opposing goalie, or power play, “sucks,” then they’ve been clever. They could learn from these kids. The Hibbing students were all sitting on one side, near the corner, and they were mostly wearing jackets. Whether it was for Bluejackets or not, I can’t say. The Virginia gang was at the end of the arena, and they were all wearing white T-shirts. At one point, the Virginia kids chanted “You need jackets…you need jackets…” After a very short organizational pause, the Hibbing kids chanted back: “We’ve GOT jackets…we’ve GOT jackets…”

On Thursday night at the DECC, East faced No.1 seed Elk River. The Elks had beaten East during the season, 3-2 in overtime, which probably determined the top seed, ultimately. East has been a challenge for coach Mike Randolph all season. He wants them to pass, stressed passing throughout practices, and it never seemed to catch on. But after a season of being the most reluctant-to-pass East team in memory, on this night, East came up with a near-perfect game.

On the first shift, junior Zac Schendel raced in and delivered a puck-producing bodycheck, and East dominated from the outset, outshooting Elk River 13-7 and gaining a 1-0 lead when on Kevin Brazerol caught a neat pass from Dom Toninato and lifted a quick shot in from the right side. Second period, East was even better.

Phil Johnson celebrates East goal.

Andy Wellenski scored from the right point, and then, in the span of 2:01, Kyle Lutzka knocked in the rebound of a Schendel slap shot, Nolan Meyer scored by swiping a no-look end boards reverse pass, and Toninato scored on a 3-on-2 rush. The Greyhounds outshot Elk River 13-3 in the period, and it was a stunning 5-0 at the second intermission. Granted, East backed off and played carelessly in the third, but still won 5-1 in what might have been their best game — and certainly best teamwork game — of the season. How can anyone figure that it would take the whole season before the players, and maybe the parents, bought into what coach Randolph was trying to do.

“From Christmas on,” said Randolph, “I’ve been preparing for this game. I told the players that practiced might have gotten tiresome from the repitition, but the only way we’re going to get anywhere is to win the section, and the only way we’re going to do that is to play as a team.”

On Friday night, the scene shifted to Cloquet, for the Section 5A final between Hermantown’s top-seeded Hawks, and Denfeld’s gritty underdog Hunters. Whether it was a neighborhood battle or a family feud, these two teams came to fight it out for the 5A championship. The game would have been perfect at the DECC, and might have drawn 4,000 fans. Instead, it was played at Cloquet’s great arena, and was stuffed to overflow with about 2,500. Hermantown, one of the state’s best, played its game, but the constantly hustling Hunters threw their hearts and emotion into every shift.

Midway through the first period, Brendan Johnson came out from behind the net to score and give Denfeld a 1-0 lead. Adam Krause, Hermantown’s big standout center, tied it 1-1 in the second when his shot appeared to go in — or did it? There was the clank of metal, and the puck ended up over on the left sideboards. But the officials ruled it was a goal, and it was 1-1. When Charlie Comnick scored to open the third period, Hermantown’s 2-1 lead looked solid.

Kevin Danielson (13) had to get down to get Hermantown's 3-2 winner against Duluth Denfeld.

But Denfeld came back and Tyler Kaspari poked in Levi Talarico’s rebound to tie the game at 7:51. Kevin Danielson put an end to the scoring, but not the drama, when he got the Hawks back on top 3-2, with 3:46 to play. Denfeld pressed to the end, but couldn’t come up with the equalizer. Though outshot 48-20, Denfeld spent every ounce of effort and energy, and certainly, by no measure, could be called losers in the game. Denfeld freshman Zach Thompson made 45 saves. But it will be the high-flying Hawks who try to win a trophy at state.

Chrysler via Fiat gets a Lancia and model.

DETROIT, MICH. — The Detroit International Auto Show might well have simply renamed its first media day as the Ford Motor Company Spectacular.  Ford opened the show with a sweep of the North American Car of the Year award, won by the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and Truck of the Year, with the Ford Transit Connect.

As if that wasn’t enough reward for Ford’s successful negotiating of these troubled automotive times, Ford next held the first scheduled press conference at Cobo Hall, and, having earlier announced the reintroduction of the Ford Fiesta, a smaller compact car that has been available in Europe since being taken out of the U.S. market a couple of decades ago, as a 2011 model, Ford unveiled the first production prototype of the new and global Focus, which will come in as a 2012 vehicle. Coordinating the European Focus with the less-sophisticated U.S. car, the new car will be made of 55 percent high-strength steel with a platform growing out of Volvo’s S40 safety characteristics, and a potent 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine that began life at Mazda.

Commercial Transit Connect as kayak-mobile.

With the 2011 Fiesta and the 2012 Focus aimed at establishing new gasoline-engine standards for the larger compact segment, Ford added that it would also bring out a plug-in all-electric hybrid version of the Focus with its future hybrid elements to be developed in Michigan.

William Ford, executive chairman, said tht economy, energy and environment will be the three primary targets of the recovering auto industry and that the company that best combines those three virtues will be the winner. Without a doubt, Ford intends to see that Ford is that winner. “For 30 years, I’ve been advocating fuel-efficiency and lower emissions,” Ford said. “Now I’m preaching to the choir.”

Ford's all-new and global Focus for 2011.

While Ford didn’t need to file bankruptcy or to accept government bailout loans to stay afloat in the past year, Ford’s giant rival, General Motors, followed Ford in scheduled press conferences. GM had introduced a glistening Regal GS model, boasting of 355 horsepower and flashy 0-60 times.

To be fair, GM had introduced the 2011 Buick Regal at the Los Angeles Auto Show a month earlier, so it wanted to roll out a special model of the car for its hometown backers. But in overview, when GM has been filling the television airwaves with promotions and advertising for its still-struggling vehicles, here was GM following Ford’s highly economical Car of the Year, Truck of the Year, and Fiesta plus the Focus — all aimed at lofty fuel economy — and General Motors showed off a high-performance car with raves of high horsepower and snappy acceleration. It was quite a contrast.

Chevy Aveo gets sporty upgrade.

Other impressive displays also featured high mileage and alternative energy. Chevrolet did show off its coming Cruze, which will replace the Cobalt, and a revised Aveo with an sporty RS model was shown

Chrysler had an interesting display, with the return of models with its models. The hired-in women from a modeling agency was like a throwback to earlier days, but with Fiat, the new owner of Chrysler, being Italian, it all made sense. A highlight was a statuesque woman in a skirt that could best be described as mini from both top and bottom, made of a metal-panel material. Oh, yes, she was standing next to a very stylish new car that was called a Chrysler Lancia, with a Lancia from Fiat’s European stable being rebadged as a new Chrysler model.

Toyota's plug-in Prius hybrid coupe.

Chrysler also will get the Fiat 500 subcompact, and if that wasn’t enough, or if new Fiat valve-timing technology that can be applied to existing Chrysler engines wasn’t satisfactory, there also was a sleek new Ferrari parked amid the Chryslers. Fiat, you see, also owns Ferrari.

Toyota unveiled a concept 2-door hybrid coupe version of the Prius, amid several new Prius models, and will offer the FT-CH as a new coupe for its upscale Lexus brand. Honda followed up its previous show of a CR-Z concept car with the production prototype of the car, which is a hybrid that appears to be a sleek coupe version of the Insight.

Volkswagen also showed off a future car called, imaginatively, the NCC — for New Car Concept. It is an impressively styled 2-door with sweeping creases and contours, which reportedly resembles what the redesigned 2011 Jetta will look like.

VW's NCC concept coupe foreshadows Jetta.

Audi rolled out a low, slippery coupe based on the R8 sports car, and said it will have electric power, living up to the e-tron ev name. Audi also was named the winner of the EyeOn Design award for the new 2011 A8 luxury sedan.

BMW showed a pure electric sports coupe with spectacular looks and a 165-mile cruising range, and claimed that media test drives of its hybrid will be conducted in the first half of this year. Mercedes, which has a neat coupe version of its newly released E-Class sedan, unveiled a convertible version of the same car.

Korean leader Hyundai showed the new Sonata that drew raves at the LA show, and it looked even better in person. It will be powered by only 4-cylinder engines, one with a turbocharger. It also showed a Blue Will version, which will be powered by a 1.6-liter direct-injection 4 and a hybrid electrical system. Hyundai also unveiled its facelifted Santa Fe and an all-new Tucson.

Ford officials had good reason to spend the media days celebrating their achievements at the show. In winning the Car of the Year title, Ford had to beat what I thought was the most competitive list of candidates ever. The Fusion Hybrid, which was isolated from the other revised Fusion models as a separate candidate, ran away with the car award, amassing 282 points on a voting system where the 50 jury members distribute a total of 25 points to the field of candidates, with a maximum of 10 to any one car.

Honda's sporty CR-Z hybrid 2-seater.

The Volkswagen Golf/GTI/TDI placed second with 163 points, and the Buick Lacrosse was third with 134, creating those three on the finalist list for a final revote, which had 10 points to be cast in any order. In that process, the Fusion Hybrid had 241, with the Golf 146 and the Lacrosse 103.

Not to be overlooked is that the larger Ford Taurus, all-new for 2010, finished fourth  with 79, followed by the Camaro 74, Porsche Panamera 67, Mazda3 at 64, Suzuki Kizashi 57, Toyota Prius 56, Kia Soul 55, Subaru Legacy 47, BMW 335d44, the remaining Fusion lineup 33, Cadillac CTS Wagon 25, Mercedes E-Class 23, and Honda Insight 22.

In Truck of the Year, the Transit Connect may have benefitted by being a legitimate truck, albeit a compact delivery vehicle, compared to the array of crossover SUVs and grown up station wagons. The Transit Connect scored 237 points to lead the three finalists, where it was joined by the Chevrolet Equinox at 217, and the Subaru Outback at 145.

The remainder show the Audi Q5 at 125, the Land Rover LR4 116, the Volvo XC60 110, Lincoln MKT 96, Cadillac SRX 92, followed by a late-released pair — the Acura ZDX 45 and the Honda Accord Crosstour 42.

In the final revote of the three finalists, the Transit Connect had 213, the Equinox 183, and the Outback 94.