Smart ForTwo crash test results and video

With the Smart ForTwo coming to the United States for the first time, we have heard many questions about this microcar’s safety than its fuel economy. How will its occupants fare in a collision? We now have some definitive answers regarding crash protection from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); both organizations give the miniscule ForTwo decent marks.

In April, the NHTSA conducted front- and side-crash tests on the redesigned 2008 model, awarding the car four stars for frontal protection for the driver and three for the passenger. In the side crash test, the agency gave it five stars, though flagged a safety concern because the driver door unlatched and opened, creating a risk for occupant ejection.

After viewing the NHTSA test and videos, we were anxious to see how the Smart ForTwo fared in the more stringent IIHS tests. In a report released today, IIHS has given the ForTwo its highest rating of Good in frontal-offset and side-impact tests. As can be seen in the video (search in the Consumer Reports crash test video player), the ForTwo experiences some drama in the tests.

Frontal-offset test
When the Smart strikes the offset barrier, there is precious little structure ahead of the passenger compartment to absorb the crash energy, putting more work on the restraint system. The driver dummy’s head struck the steering wheel through the front air bag, though injury measures were considered Acceptable. The restraints and dummy kinematics were rated Good, matching the overall rating. In watching the video, the ForTwo spins around in what could be an adjacent lane or possibly off the road. Most vehicles do not spin nor move laterally in such a way, raising the possibility of other risks. In the NHTSA test, on the other hand, vehicles are crashed into a flat wall; the ForTwo rebounds expectedly in that test, without rotating or moving sideways.

It is important to note that the IIHS’s frontal-crash-test simulates what would happen if two cars of the same weight and type crashed head-on, left headlight to left headlight. The results can only be compared to other vehicles in the same class. However, there are no other microcars offered in the U.S. by IIHS’s classification. So, while the ForTwo would do well in a frontal impact with another Smart or in a single-car crash, the test results can’t predict how the Smart would fare hitting a larger vehicle. The reality is the Smart will always be the smaller car in a two-vehicle accident.

Side crash test
In the side-impact test, the 3,300-pound IIHS moving barrier pushed the diminutive car quite a distance across the floor of the test center. This test represents the impact from an SUV, and the visual is reminiscent of the Mini Cooper test (check out the video). Again, this could raise the possibility of other risks.

The ForTwo’s stiff side structure and standard side air bags protected the driver, earning the ForTwo a Good rating for side-impact performance. Injury forces recorded on the dummy’s head, neck, torso, pelvis, and left leg were all low. However, the driver door unlatched, as it had in the NHTSA test. As a result, IIHS downgraded the structural rating from Good to Acceptable, however the Institute notes that “the opening didn’t appear to affect dummy movement during the test and injury measures on the driver dummy were low.” Translation: make sure you’re wearing your seatbelt.

The risk of small cars
While the ForTwo performed well overall in the tests by these two organizations, the risk of death is high in crashes of smaller, lighter vehicles. "For vehicles 1-3 years old during 2006," reports IIHS, "minicars experienced 106 driver deaths per million registered vehicles compared with 69 driver deaths in large cars."

The ForTwo is the smallest car offered in the United States, measuring just 106 inches and tipping the scales at a bantam-weight 1,745 pounds. To put it into perspective, our tested Mini Cooper S was 146 inches long and weighed 2,690 pounds. Inquiring about the safety is only natural with the ForTwo.

"All things being equal, in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package," said Institute President Adrian Lund in a released statement. The ForTwo includes seat-mounted side air bags (as opposed to curtain-style, head-protection bags), antilock brakes, and electronic stability control (ESC)—car safety features we recommended you look for in any car. Having ESC in such an inexpensive car is commendable.

There are many small, comparably priced cars to choose from, though admittedly few are as distinctive on the roads, easy to park, or promise such high mileage as the Smart. As with any car purchase, be sure to research all your options to ensure you are making a truly smart decision.

Look for a full road test of the Smart ForTwo in the months to come.

—Jeff Bartlett

View videos of about 250 vehicles evaluated in IIHS crash tests.

For more information on safety, visit our car safety section and read "Crash Test 101."
Discuss Smart cars in the forum.

Average gas prices--May 12, 2008

Gas prices rise higher again this week.

National retail fuel price averages

Price

Change from last week

Regular gasoline/gallon	$3.72	↑ .11
Diesel fuel/gallon	$4.33	↑ .18

Regional regular gasoline prices

Price

Change from last week

East Coast	$3.71	↑ .10
-New England	$3.75	↑ .12
-Central Atlantic	$3.73	↑ .09
-Lower Atlantic	$3.69	↑ .11
Midwest	$3.74	↑ .16
Gulf Coast	$3.62	↑ .11
Rocky Mountain	$3.61	↑ .12
West Coast	$3.83	↑ .03
-California	$3.92	↑ .02

Source: Energy Information Administration, 5/12/08

$2.99 gas from Chrysler—Deal or no deal?

Americans are feeling pain at the pump, with gas prices continuing to soar. To adjust to the challenges posed by the rising cost of living, consumers are putting off vehicle purchases or buying smaller cars instead of more profitable trucks and SUVs. As a result, automakers are experiencing decreased sales and profits.

One of the biggest losers: Chrysler. The company is trying to rebound from a disappointing April (sales were 23-percent below the same period last year) with its own economic stimulus plan: fixed-rate gasoline for new-car buyers. But is this really a good deal for the consumer?

Chrysler is not the first to use gasoline as an incentive, and it isn't the last, as Suzuki has stepped up to offer free gas for the summer along with zero-percent financing. Discounted or even free gas speaks to consumers' hearts and purse strings. On the surface, it may seem a pretty good deal, considering the national average is $3.61/gallon. But some Chrysler vehicles don't excel at fuel economy; Chrysler doesn't currently even offer a small hybrid or an efficient subcompact car in their fleet.

For now, let's forget about the environmental or energy independence concerns of burning more fuel. Given that (generous) assumption, is $2.99 gas enough to make up for Chrysler’s lackluster fleet fuel economy when it comes to ownership costs? As you might guess, it depends on how long you keep the vehicle:

The first three years
Given current gasoline prices of $3.61, you would need to buy a car with 21 percent better fuel economy than a Chrysler product to have equal fuel costs during the three years of discounted gas. That’s a big difference, but here are some examples (all fuel economy figures are from CR's tests, and are "overall"—mixture of city and highway driving—mpg):

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over three years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Durango 5.7L, 4WD (13 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg) or Honda Pilot AWD (17 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Honda Fit (32 mpg)
Dodge Nitro SLT AWD (16 mpg)	Honda CR-V AWD (21 mpg) or Toyota RAV4 4-cyl., AWD (23 mpg)

Six years
But let’s say that you keep a car longer than three years. After that time’s up (whether you’ve consumed your allotted quota of discounted gas or not), you go back to paying the same fuel prices as everyone else. Here the difference lessens: you would need to buy a car with about 9.5 percent better fuel economy than the Chrysler product to equal things out.

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over six years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Charger 3.5L V6 (19 mpg)	Toyota Avalon (22 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Nissan Versa (28 mpg)
Chrysler Pacifica AWD (16 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg)
Dodge Caravan 3.8L V6 (16 mpg)	Toyota Sienna (19 mpg) Honda Odyssey (19 mpg)

Ten years
The difference grows to be less and less—you only need to get a vehicle that gets about 5.5 percent better fuel economy.

Of course, these percentages will differ if gas prices keep on climbing. But after the three years of cheap gas are up, you could wind up having to pay to fill up a 13 mpg Dodge Durango or 16 mpg Dodge Nitro—and you'll then be paying just what everyone else is shelling out.

Beyond that, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances:

Chrysler restricts the number of gallons of gas covered by the deal to what they expect you to consume in 12,000 miles. (That’s the average annual number of miles driven in the U.S.) To do that, they use an average mpg figure for each model. That combines all of the model versions available: big engines and small engines, two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive.

If you combine that calculation method with the disparity between CR's fuel economy testing vs. the revised 2008 EPA overall estimates, you might not get all of your fuel covered:

Vehicle

CR overall fuel economy

Using CR overall, gallons used in 36,000 miles

Average MPG calculated by Chrysler

Gallons of fuel Chrysler will discount

Is annual fuel use covered?

Chrysler Sebring Touring (4-cyl.)	23	1,565	21	1,714	Yes
Dodge Charger (3.5L V6)	19	1,895	18	2,000	Yes
Dodge Caliber SXT (2.0L, FWD)	24	1,500	24	1,500	Yes
Dodge Nitro SLT (AWD)	16	2,250	18	2,000	No
Jeep Patriot AWD (2.4L 4-cyl.)	20	1,800	23	1,565	No
Dodge Durango 4WD (5.7L V8)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Chrysler Pacifica AWD	16	2,250	17	2,118	No
Dodge Ram 2500 (6.7L turbodiesel)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Dodge Grand Caravan (3.8L V6)	16	2,250	19	1,895	No

On the other hand, if you buy the more efficient version in a model lineup (say a four-cylinder Chrysler Sebring, when the average was calculated including V6 Sebrings), you can get more quota of free gas than you'd consume. (You can use that extra on another car that you own, assuming it takes the same fuel type.) Same goes if you drive more highway miles, where fuel economy is better. The gas deal reduces the amount of the cash-back incentives. Often the savings calculated above can make up for the difference in the incentives, but sometimes it doesn't—particularly for vehicles with big initial incentives.

Change in incentives

Cash-back without gas plan

Cash back with gas plan

Loss in incentive

Gallons of discount fuel

Fuel savings

At $3.61, do fuel savings exceed incentive loss?

Chrysler Sebring Touring	$500	0	$500	1,714	$1,083	Yes
Dodge Charger	2,000	$500	1,500	2,000	1,240	No
Dodge Caliber	750	0	750	1,500	930	Yes
Dodge Nitro	1,250	0	1,250	2,000	1,240	No
Jeep Patriot	500	0	500	1,565	970	Yes
Dodge Durango	2,500	1,000	1,500	2,400	1,488	No
Chrysler Pacifica	2,500	500	2,000	2,118	1,313	No
Dodge Ram 2500 diesel	4,500	2,000	2,500	2,400	2,784 @ $4.15 diesel	Yes
Dodge Grand Caravan	2,500	500	2,000	1,895	1,175	No

Keep in mind that cash-back is money instantly off of the price of the car. It reduces the loan price, thus reducing interest payments. Plus you know you’re getting the money—you don’t have to make sure you fit the rules of the discount gas deal.

On the other hand, the gas deal requires you to pay for gas with your credit card. That's no problem if you pay off your balance each month, but otherwise you’ll be paying interest on your purchases, eating into the savings. Same goes for if you would have paid cash for fuel rather than charging it as required by the deal.

One somewhat esoteric buyer category who can really benefit from this plan—someone buying a diesel heavy-duty pickup truck. Given that diesel prices are averaging $4.15 per gallon, fixing the price at the same $2.99 as gasoline is a big difference. And the Dodge Ram 2500 diesel we tested gets the same 13 mpg fuel economy as a Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra heavy-duty diesel. (Then again, the 2009 Ram truck is redesigned with notable improvements over the 2008, so you might want to wait anyway.) A diesel Grand Cherokee would also benefit, but the Dodge Sprinter van isn't included in the program.

Yes, you may save some money on gas, at least in the short term. But our owner cost data shows that, even with growing fuel costs, depreciation remains the biggest chunk of vehicle ownership costs. The competitors' vehicles listed in the chart have lower depreciation than their Chrysler counterparts, saving thousands over the life of the car and erasing the savings from the cheap gas deal. Also consider that, in general, vehicles sold with hefty discounts see more rapid depreciation than those that sell for closer to retail price. After all, it has essentially depreciated BEFORE you drove it off the lot, and it will continue to drop in value soon as it leaves the dealership. A model with better fuel economy (not to mention test scores and reliability) will likely hold its value better and be cheaper to refuel, possibly negating the benefit of the gas card.

Finally, you do more with a car than put gas in it—you drive it. You want it to be comfortable and perform well. Most of the Chrysler products listed (except the now-discontinued Pacifica) score near the bottom of our Ratings, while the competing cars listed score near the top.

It's interesting that in the same week that Chrysler announced this plan, Ford announced the widespread use of six-speed automatic transmissions to improve fuel economy. Most car companies, including Chrysler, are moving to technologies like this to improve efficiency.

Of course, Chrysler has to move its current inventory now. Discount gas is a way to promote their cars. But that doesn't mean you should be swayed by cheap(er) gas to buy a vehicle that gets so-so fuel economy, loses a lot of resale, or doesn't perform well in our Ratings. As with any car purchase, it pays to do your homework, looking at the complete purchase and ownership picture, and not be swayed by advertising.

—Tom Mutchler

For tips on saving gasoline and alternative fuels, see our fuel economy guide. 

Arnold to automakers: Stop whining!

In the ongoing battle over CO2 emissions limits in California, a group of car company executives from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers recently met with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to plead their case. They say the state should drop its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, which would effectively require cars to get better fuel economy. Since the federal government recently established higher fuel economy regulations, requiring cars to average 31.6 mpg by 2015, they say the California mandate is unnecessary and would result in a patchwork of fuel economy regulations across the nation.

However, legally, there could be no "patchwork" of regulations, since California is the only state allowed under federal law to pass its own emissions standards. (Other states can follow either California’s standards or the federal ones, but not set their own.)

American automakers have never been known for their enthusiasm for improving fuel economy. Even the outspoken Vice Chairman of Global Product Development at GM, Bob Lutz, has said, "There has been this perception that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not forthcoming with new technology."

After meeting with the automakers, the Governator still wasn’t buying their long-held arguments. He told them, "The train has left the station," according to an Associated Press report.

Then the muscle-bound governor got tough, saying, "While you’re whining, you should be creating new technologies. That’s how you meet the date."

Ouch.

Do you think automakers are dragging their feet on improving fuel efficiency? Or are they right to resist increasingly stringent fuel economy standards? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

—Eric Evarts

Read: Gov. Schwarzenegger's official statement

From the logbook: Nissan Murano

The last-generation Nissan Murano was a staff favorite here at the track. Many of us, having no real need for competitors with a third-row seat or big towing capacity numbers, listed it in multiple SUV Personal Picks. Indeed, we mentioned it so often that some of our editors thought we, ah, were mentioning the Murano a little too much. [‘Tis true-Ed.]

But there’s a redesigned Murano now. Based on the Altima sedan, the 2009 Murano moves to the updated Altima platform, a car that now tops our family sedan ratings. The old Murano had a lot going for it, especially its sporty driving dynamics. However, fit and finish wasn’t a strong point (although it got better in a 2005 update) and the swoopy styling compromised visibility.

You’ll have to look close to notice that the Murano is new. Other than a very prominent, very chromed grille, styling didn’t veer far from that of the popular first generation. Let’s flip through the logbook to see what our first impressions are on this new model:

"Instead of building a budget BMW X5 (like the last Murano), Nissan built a budget Lexus RX."

"Engine is punchy and refined. CVT is one of the best—unobtrusive and never needs to rev the engine too much and for too long."

"Seems to have lost a bit of charm from earlier models."

"White-on-silver gauges are not a recipe for easy legibility. Can’t possibly see or read climate control AUTO labeling or indicator – probably seemed fine on the blueprints, but not in the car."

"Two separate levers for steering wheel (tilt and telescope) adjustment is a pain."

"The new Murano is fully equipped and nicely finished—so much so that it should have been an Infiniti."

"Visibility has gotten even worse —thicker pillars, tiny rear window, miserable ¾ sloping side window."

"Power (rear) hatch is slow; I prefer manual override."

"Lost some of the sporty edge from last model."

"Very comfortable and relatively quiet on the highway. Especially with the satellite radio, this car makes for good road trips."

"Very wide A-pillars hurt visibility."

“Seat cushions are flat and not much support on the side – also short cushions."

"Good handling, but you feel its size."

"Nice car and good follow-up to last Murano. Interior design is much less caustic."

At first glance, almost everyone agrees that the inside of the Murano is a much more attractive place to be and visibility remains a problem. But the jury is still out on whether the Murano is as enjoyable to drive or as comfortable as the last version.

So, will the Murano again be a frequent visitor in our Personal Picks, or have newer SUVs usurped its place in our affections? We’ll see how the Murano does against other upscale five-passenger SUVs, including its corporate-mate, the Infiniti EX35, and Volkswagen’s updated Touareg in a future test.

—Tom Mutchler

Grand openings—Hatchback road test and videos

For our test group in the June 2008 issue, we drove small hatchbacks. These vehicles provide good fuel economy, practicality, and versatility. And one has all-wheel drive.

The full road tests from the magazine have been posted at ConsumerReports.org, along with videos from our staff auto experts. These videos highlight our tests of each vehicle, plus they demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each model.

"Grand Openings" features the Mini Cooper Clubman, Saturn Astra, Scion xD, Subaru Impreza Outback Sport, Toyota Matrix, and Volkswagen Rabbit. Ratings for all small cars we have tested can be found with our dynamic New Car Selector tool.

Check out the video of the Mini Cooper Clubman, plus see the rest of our hatchback videos.

2009 Suzuki SX4 to have standard GPS

Suzuki has announced that it will offer in-car navigation as a standard feature on the 2009 Suzuki SX4 Sport sedan and front-drive SX4 Crossover hatchback models. This is the first time a manufacturer is including integrated GPS navigation in an entry-level vehicle in the United States.

The navigation system is based on the Garmin Nuvi 700 series portable navigation device (PND). The Suzuki version, called T.R.I.P (Travel, Real-time traffic, Information, and Play) will offer a 4.3-inch touch-screen display with preloaded maps and millions of points of interest (POI), such as restaurants, hotels, ATMs, and gas stations. Suzuki has customized the POI database by adding recommended destinations such as music venues, surf spots, and other activity-focused attractions.

Buyers will be able to upgrade to a more premium navigation system, adding Bluetooth capability and Microsoft Network service—which offers real-time traffic, weather, and gas prices. Suzuki will launch a community Web site to share and download destinations and recommendations among other SX4 owners.

The system will be integrated into the audio system, which automatically lowers the volume of the radio or CD when the navigation system is giving a verbal instruction. Additionally, the Microsoft antenna is integrated into the vehicle’s antenna to continuously receive new data with the premium version.

The Garmin device can be removed from the dash-board docking station, and Suzuki advises that it could be replaced/upgraded in the future by the car owner with another similar Garmin unit. The Garmin Nuvi 700 series has performed well in our ratings (available to online subscribers) of portable devices.

Suzuki decided to add this system after hearing feedback from current SX4 owners that navigation is the most desired feature in their next vehicle. In-car navigation systems from the factory can cost $1500-$2000, or be a part of an even more expensive technology package.

Suzuki has not yet released pricing for the 2009 SX4 line, but says it will have a base price of under $16,000, signaling a potential price increase. The SX4 Sport starts at $14,270 and the SX4 Crossover at $14,770, plus $625 in destination charges. For comparison purposes, you can buy a portable Garmin Nuvi 700 series device for around $600, so with a possible increase in base price, you may be paying for the system, after all. (Suzuki will not announce pricing until closer to on-sale date this summer.)

The docking station concept is an exciting one, as it could allow users to choose the level of GPS they want and potentially upgrade it in the future, allowing for new features to be brought to the car. It is conceivable that docks could become the navigation equivalent of iPod connectors, allowing consumers to choose the device and upgrade as desired. Of course, this would require the adherence to standards. With Garmin accounting for half the U.S. market, it is a possibility. Toyota is experimenting with a dock application in the 4Runner SUV. Although Toyota offers a DVD-based navigation system on the 4Runner, the Urban Runner model includes a removable TomTom portable navigation device.

Clearly, consumer interest in GPS-enabled devices is on the rise, and we expect to see more creative solutions in the future.

What solutions would you like to see? Post your thoughts in the comments below.

—Liza Barth

How to buy a GPS device for Mother’s Day

After a lifetime of dear ol’ mother telling you what to do, how to behave, and where to go, Mother’s Day is an annual occasion to show your appreciation. This year, you might consider returning her maternal favors with a portable GPS navigation system. A recent visit from my out-of-state parents had me thinking that a basic, entry-level device would be money well spent.

Between $150 and $200, you can find good, general-purpose GPS devices that are well-suited for occasional use, including the pink Garmin Nuvi 200 shown here. If Mom has a demanding commute or penchant for road trips, a model with a wide screen and spoken street names would no doubt be appreciated.

In our online GPS buying advice and video, we detail numerous factors and features to consider in choosing a portable navigation device, leading you to our comprehensive ratings, dynamic GPS product selector, and model overview pages filled with facts, figures, insights, and user reviews. By doing the quick-and-easy research, you can ensure you give Mother (or Father if you’re shopping early) a good GPS device on their holiday.

However, I encourage you to go a step further to make it a good gift.

Rather than order the GPS device online and have it shipped direct to her, send it to yourself or purchase it locally. With the device in hand, charge up the device and program it for her. Enter her home address, save into Favorites the addresses for family, friends, and likely vacation destinations where she is likely to use her new electronic assistant.

Many devices include a photo viewer. Go ahead and load up digital family pictures, giving her a mobile slide show.

Once you’ve personalized the device, gift wrap it, and treat her to a helpful, heart-felt surprise.

No doubt she may have questions about how it works, but because you set it up for her, you’ll be conversant in its operation. In a pinch, the owner’s manuals are typically available online, making it easier to help from afar.

And if you don’t use this idea for next Sunday, there’s always Father’s Day…

—Jeff Bartlett

See other gift ideas for Mother’s Day in our special section.

For more information on portable GPS navigation systems, see our Ratings and buying advice and watch our video guide. Discuss GPS devices in the forums. 

From the logbook: Land Rover Range Rover Sport

Elegant, exclusive, and expensive (ours is $61,900, with the 300-hp, 4.4-liter V8), the Range Rover Sport competes with other pricy (and gas thirsty) SUVs, including the Porsche Cayenne and BMW X5. How is such a luxurious guzzler fairing under our scrutiny? Are we ashamed to drive it in public, or does merely “arriving” in this prestige machine get us more attention than we deserve? Will the controls be any better than the cryptic ones in the last Land Rover we tested – the LR3, upon which the Sport is based – which we called “confusing [and] poorly located”? Read our first impressions from the logbook and find out if there’s much “sport” in the Range Rover Sport:

"Without the supercharged engine, this drives just like our old LR3 – kind of slow."

"Engine sounds great, but the hefty weight is apparent on acceleration."

"The ride is stiff and has abrupt impacts."

"Steering is short on feedback."

"For such a large vehicle, there is no room for the driver. I feel boxed in."

"The navigation system is the most complicated and least comprehensive I’ve ever used."

"It’s a nice looking vehicle, but $62K should include a backup camera, heated steering wheel, and six months of free satellite radio."

"What kooky controls…same radio faceplate as our LR2: big rotary knob on the right side, but it doesn’t tune the radio frequency…simply idiotic."

"Common controls like mirrors, windows, and door locks are ill-placed."

"Good visibility all around, comfortable seats."

"Thermonuclear seat heaters."

"The shoulder belt tugs hard and my knee bashes against the center console and door panel."

"Cramped rear seat for this class."

"Looks great, nicely done interior."

"Wonderful headlights, especially high beams."

"The solid feel of the car doesn’t carry over to the doors, which are hard to close the first time [you shut them] and have a loose, rattly sound when shutting. The tailgate is the same."

"Comes with lots of prestige, and it might be good off-road, but it’s really not exciting to drive. I can’t understand why this car is so fashionable and popular." [But, of course, this person lives in tony Westport, CT, which is chock-a-block with Land Rovers…]

"Strangely appealing, but not a smart purchase in any sense of the word."

So the debate continues as to whether or not there is much practicality in the Range Rover Sport…or is that missing the point? High-end SUVs look nice, many are seen as status symbols, and they cost truckloads of money both to buy and at the pump. That might address their affluent owners’ goals, but it doesn’t mean they’re good vehicles.  We’re putting together a test group that will include the Range Rover Sport, as well as the Porsche Cayenne, Toyota Land Cruiser, and others to see how these trucks perform as vehicles, not just as rolling jewelry.

—Mike Quincy

Average gas prices—May 5, 2008

Gas prices are mixed this week.

National retail fuel price averages

Price

Change from last week

Regular gasoline/gallon	$3.61	↑ .01
Diesel fuel/gallon	$4.15	↓ .03

Regional regular gasoline prices

Price

Change from last week

East Coast	$3.61	↑ .01
-New England	$3.63	↑ .03
-Central Atlantic	$3.64	↑ .02
-Lower Atlantic	$3.58	↓ .01
Midwest	$3.58	↑ .01
Gulf Coast	$3.51	0
Rocky Mountain	$3.49	↑ .02
West Coast	$3.80	↑ .01
-California	$3.90	↑ .01

Source: Energy Information Administration, 5/5/08