99.9 mpg in a Mini Cooper!

I love trip computers. Especially when you turn on the "instant mpg" feature. Go down a hill in even a gas-guzzling Navigator and - shazam! - the truck is getting 99.9 mpg. I think this is a hoot. Who ever thought a 6,200-pound monster of an SUV would ever achieve such a feat?!

While driving my son to soccer practice recently in the Mini Cooper S, I had the "instant mpg" display active on the tiny screen in the lower part of the tachometer. As I observed the car attaining this incredible mpg down a hill, I thought, "Who really believes this?" I mean, when you're hammering the Mini's turbocharged engine, the instant mpg falls quicker than a yodeling first-round American Idol contestant. Who's surprised that you're not maximizing the car's fuel efficiency when you're driving hard? And how often can you drive down hills to and from your job to get this 99.9 mpg?

Trip computers have many useful features--I'm especially fond of the distance-to-empty display--but the instant mpg? The only reason to look at this gizmo is to highlight the appalling fuel economy you get when you accelerate hard. Admittedly, keeping an eye on this display can help modify your driving habits to attain better fuel economy. So, if you didn't know this already, hard acceleration = poor mpg. And frequent descents make you feel like the king of the green world.

May all your commuting be down hill...

--Mike Quincy

Personal picks: Luxury SUVs, part 3

Here are more staff perspectives on the luxury SUVs test group:

Mike Quincy: I can't get too excited over $40,000 SUVs that can't comfortably sit at least six people. The bling factor doesn't do it for me, either. I appreciate the comfort of the Lexus RX350 and the driving pleasure of the Acura MDX, but neither are as compelling to drive as a Nissan Murano. If I simply had to have a luxury SUV, I might look at the Lexus GX470--whose roots are the very capable Toyota 4Runner. But it's convertible weather right now, and I'd rather be in a Miata.

Eric Evarts: The Acura MDX has been one of my favorite vehicles on the market since it debuted in 2001. In fact, until its junior sister, the Honda Pilot came along, I told several friends there was no better vehicle you could buy at any price. The original MDX combined carlike handling, a silky V6 engine, a flexible seating arrangement for seven, and all the creature comforts one could ask for. The new one does little to change that assessment, but as time has moved forward, other capable competitors have come along to undercut it.

The new one strikes me as gilding the lily at best, and at worst makes driving it more complicated. The new grille looks like was found on the set of a "Mad Max" movie. Like CR's engineers, I miss the touch screen navigation system. And since I don't drive on a racetrack every day, or off pavement, I would welcome a version without Acura's Super-Handling All-Wheel-Drive. As these features have driven up the price of the MDX, other simpler competitors such as the Mazda CX-9 have come along that offer the good handling and excellent packaging at a much lower price. So with the redesigned model, the MDX is no longer on my list of favorite cars, just my favorite in the August test group. Among crossover SUVs, I consider the Mazda CX-9 or Honda Pilot as better choices.

Scion's virtual customers

Scion customers are nothing if not a wired bunch. To plug into these virtual Web denizens, the company's Web site, scion.com, offers all kinds of social opportunities, including links to forums, Scion-sponsored concert schedules, and a whole section devoted to "culture."

If all that isn't enough to keep their keyboard-happy audience entertained, Scion recently announced a new Web site, want2Bsquare.com. The site offers cool graphics, interactive Flash playthings, and a game where players can win prizes like flat-screen TVs. The buzz-driven site has been such a runaway success that Scion says they're getting a 15 percent increase in visitors every week.

The only problem is that some visitors apparently want to be square so badly that they're spending up to 20 hours a week on the site in an area ironically labeled "Wasteland." I'm no marketing whiz, but one would think that would leave little time to shop for--or earn the money to pay for--actual, real-life Scions.   

--Jim Travers

Tire maintenance tips

Federal officials have ordered the recall of 450,000 tires imported from China.  These lack a safety feature that prevents the tire tread from separating. While Consumer Reports has not tested this brand of tires, it's important to follow the basics of proactive maintenance and inspection, particularly with summer just starting. Heat is the enemy of any tire, and with summer heat combined with high levels of summer travel, we recommend that consumers do the following:

• Inspect your tires. Replace any worn out tire as well as any tire with a bulge, crack, or cut. We'd even suggest replacing all four if they're nearly worn out. This keeps the best tread on all four corners of your car instead of only one. Check the wear across the tire's tread and determine if it is wearing evenly or wearing more on one side than the other. Uneven wear could be a telltale sign of wheel misalignment, suspension damage, or wrong inflation pressure. Have the vehicle serviced.
• Check the inflation pressure. It is important to do this routinely, preferably monthly. The correct inflation pressure is on a tire information placard found on the driver's door jamb. Adjust the inflation pressure when the tires are cold or when the car has been parked for three or more hours. 
• Watch the load capacity. Adhere to the vehicle load capacity recommended on the tire information placard. Too high a load and/or low pressure will overstress a tire and could lead to failure.
• Check your steering. Should you experience a vibration or steering pull, stop and inspect the tires, and replace a tire with the spare if needed. If you can not determined a tire abnormality, then either drive or have the car towed to a service center immediately. Always avoid highway speed travel on the way to the service center.

When it comes to your tires, consult our performance ratings on the tire that best suits your needs. Also, see our complete Ratings and recommendations on all of the tires that we've tested. For more in-depth information see our reports on the early signs of tire failure and tire maintenance. 

--Jon Linkov

Video - Features that flunk

Manufacturers are constantly coming up with new designs and features to enhance their vehicles.  Some are innovative, but others miss the mark.  Check out our video below of some features that should go back to the drawing board.

Personal picks: Luxury SUVs, part 2

Here are more staff perspectives on the luxury SUVs test group:

Gabe Shenhar: I really liked the previous generation BMW X5. But the redesign? Did they really have to do that to the X5? While it looks good and manages to hide the extra length that enabled a third-row-seat, it’s just too frustrating overall. Living with the new X5 on a daily basis annoys the heck out of me. Even if I got used to the unintuitive shifter, I’d still have to contend with the iDrive, the convoluted audio system, the unnecessary running boards, and the choppy ride. It would drive me crazy. So with all due respect to BMW (and I have quite a bit of it), that’s too high a price to pay.

So thanks for making my choice easy this time, BMW. I’m going with the Acura MDX. It has a sweet powertrain and agile handling, so when you’re in a hurry the car cooperates rather than frustrates. A compliant and composed ride, supportive seats and great fit and finish keep the fatigue at bay. The easy, retractable third-row seat expands the possibilities of who rides where and keeps all options open. The MDX also has all the electronic gizmos I would ever need, and then some. Yes, you can get lost in the forest of switchgear on the dash’s center stack, but after a weekend in the car, it somehow makes sense. The MDX is neither too large nor too small, and it looks good, too.

Rick Small: I was a bit disappointed in this group, since you don’t get a lot more for your money than many of the less expensive, newly-released three-row SUVs. The new BMW X5 handles well, but the ride is stiff. It’s one of the slower models here and has hideous controls and is too expensive. The Lexus RX350 is quiet and rides well, but it is not sporty and the driving position for tall people is not as good as some. In this group, I like the Acura MDX. It feels sporty and has the best driving position for tall folks like me. However, the ride is on the stiff side. The related Honda Pilot is less money and rides better; it even has a bit more interior room. If you don’t need AWD, you’ll save even more money with a FWD Pilot. I also think that there are many less expensive alternatives to this group that are worth a look. The recently tested all-new Saturn Outlook, Mazda CX-9, and Hyundai Veracruz perform just as well, have a third-row seat, and cost thousands less. The Ford Edge is also a less expensive alternative to the Lincoln MKX. Save your money; shop some of these new alternatives and you won’t be disappointed.

U.S. gas prices--Down

Gas prices continue their decline, diesel prices increase.

National retail fuel price averages

Regular gasoline/gallon	$2.98
Diesel fuel/gallon	$2.84

Regional regular gasoline prices

East coast	$2.95
-New England	$3.00
-Central Atlantic	$2.99
-Lower Atlantic	$2.90
Midwest	$2.97
Gulf Coast	$2.88
Rocky Mountain	$3.14
West Coast	$3.15
-California	$3.19

Source: Energy Information Administration, 6/25/07

Gas prices continue their decline, diesel prices increase.

National retail fuel price averages

Regular gasoline/gallon	$2.98
Diesel fuel/gallon	$2.84

Regional regular gasoline prices

East coast	$2.95
-New England	$3.00
-Central Atlantic	$2.99
-Lower Atlantic	$2.90
Midwest	$2.97
Gulf Coast	$2.88
Rocky Mountain	$3.14
West Coast	$3.15
-California	$3.19

Source: Energy Information Administration, 6/25/07

The speed bump on the road to a fuel-cell future

One thing both Honda and General Motors have in common is a belief that fuel-cell cars make sense, even using today’s non-renewable hydrogen supply. Both cite the number of cars that could be run on hydrogen today: Honda says there is enough hydrogen production capacity in the United States to fuel over 1 million cars with no additional investment. Total worldwide hydrogen production is enough to fuel 200 million cars, according to GM (assuming it wasn’t needed for anything else).

Most hydrogen today is produced from methane, a type of natural gas, using steam-methane reformation, a process that producers claim is 80 percent efficient. (The methane also powers most of the hydrogen production plants.)

And fuel-cell cars are about twice as efficient as gasoline-fueled cars. Honda would not give an estimate of fuel economy. But if the FCX can go 270 miles on 4 kilos of hydrogen, that amounts to about 68 miles per kilogram. A kilogram of hydrogen has roughly the same energy as a gallon of gas, so that is the equivalent of about 68 mpg.

Honda claims fuel cells can reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall by 50 percent compared with gasoline, even using today’s hydrogen supplies.

What’s attractive about hydrogen is that, unlike oil, it can be made from just about any organic substance or even from water. Making it from water, however, using electrolysis (which is roughly the reverse of how fuel cells operate), requires so much energy that electricity production would have to increase several fold. It would effectively have to come from renewable solar, geothermal, or wind power sources, which are scarce today. Until now, this has been the vision of many fuel cell advocates.

Finding a way to make enough hydrogen to eventually supply every corner gas station economically is a huge challenge. But fuel cells are so efficient that it looks like we’ll soon see at least a few cars using hydrogen from natural gas as one of several alternatives to increasing oil consumption.

If that’s not “green” enough for you, Honda is studying using hydrogen taken from waste methane at land fills. And GM filled the Sequel we drove with hydrogen generated as a byproduct of chlorine production at a Rochester, New York, plant powered by renewable electricity from Niagara Falls.

Using such renewable sources of hydrogen in large quantities would bring the efficiencies of fuel-cell driving much closer to fruition than they have seemed before. And as our drives of the Honda and GM fuel cell vehicles showed, driving clean, quiet, and powerful fuel cell cars doesn’t sound unpleasant at all.

Learn more about fuel cells and alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

--Eric Evarts

Run-flat tires go flat with our readers

Consumer Reports explored the pros and cons of run-flat tires in a June 2007 story called "Run-flat tires safety benefits outweigh problems." The article outlined some of the disadvantages and basic inconveniences of run-flat tires. Not surprisingly, this story elicited a wave of mail from our readers/subscribers who weren't shy in adding their two-cents. Much of the responses reinforced the limitations we noted in the article, including premature wear, stiff ride, high replacement costs, and limited replacement choices. We read every e-mail and letter and tried to sum up the complaints below.

Keep in mind that we're talking about only a few correspondences, so there is no scientific data from which to make conclusions. Nevertheless, here are a few common themes:

• A punctured run-flat tire may provide extended mobility, but with routine run-flat tire ranges of just 50 to 100 miles, it's far more limiting than having a conventional spare tire. One person had to spend an extra night at a town in New Mexico to get a tire from a local dealer the next morning. Another letter was more direct: "...50 miles is completely worthless..." (referring to run-flat tire capability). "I would not put my wife and kids on run-flats."
• Limited availability and accessibility were common concerns, but the high cost of replacement of a run-flat was a common comment. Additionally, a few letters noted that not only did people have to replace the flat run-flat tire, but that the wheel was damaged and had to be replaced, too. 
• Underwhelming tread wear life was noted by a few, with a few harsh words about tires lasting just 18,000 to 20,000 miles. Plus, the high replacement cost rankled many.
• Interestingly, some run-flat tire makers do not recommend repairing a run- flat tire given its uncertain condition after running flat even for a short period of time. This rubbed a few readers raw, and some noted that standard conventional tire punctures can often be repaired. 
• One reader noted that he was not informed of the limitation of run-flat tires by his new-car salesperson. He claims to have only been told about this after he had a tire problem with the new vehicle. Apparently, the dealership discourages buyers from purchasing that model car with the run-flat package. But the horse was already out of the barn.

Undoubtedly the letters will continue, and we look forward to reading them and post in our Tire Talk forum (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers). Few readers/subscribers ever write to us about the positive aspects of a product, but we'd be interested in hearing from those folks, as well. Run-flat tire technology may be sound, but readers are clearly saying there is much room for improvement. Will run-flat tires succeed in the market place, or go the way of Oldsmobile, Plymouth, and DeLorean? So far, the jury's out.

--Gene Petersen

Related blog posts:
Update: Toyota Sienna AWD run-flat tires
Toyota Sienna AWD run-flat tires wear well for us
Toyota Sienna AWD tires - patience wearing thin
Toyota extends run-flat tire warranty
Toyota Sienna run-flat tires? Spare us.
Run-flat tires go flat with our readers

Senate passes first CAFE increase in two decades

After months of wrangling, the U.S. Senate passed an energy bill late this week that would require the first big increase in automobile fuel efficiency in over two decades.

The part of the bill focused on increasing fuel efficiency was adopted by a vote of 65 to 27. The car companies had lobbied heavily for months against the more stringent fuel efficiency requirements, arguing they were willing to accept a 30 percent increase for light trucks (SUVs, pickups, and minivans), but no higher; they were unable to win the day.  Instead, they got an increase to 35 miles per gallon. However, the Senate gave the auto industry a break by omitting explicit requirements for increased fuel efficiency after 2020. Nevertheless, the Senate vote is considered a defeat for car manufacturers, and now the two sides take their battle on tougher fuel-economy standards to the House of Representatives.

The Senate bill calls for an increase in the fuel economy of cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans from an average of about 25 miles per gallon (mpg) today to 35 mpg by the year 2020. Thereafter, it requires the maximum feasible progress. According to a study by the National Academy of Science, 35 miles per gallon for new vehicles is achievable with off-the-shelf technology. This savings can be achieved with improvements in ignition, transmission, engine technology and body design changes, without reductions in weight.

The Senate bill also instructs the Department of Transportation to develop a plan by 2015 that--if technologically and economically feasible--could have half the vehicles sold in the U.S. run on alternative fuels.  This includes flex-fuel vehicles, hybrids, and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The Senate measure is expected to also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one billion tons.

The Senate was unable, however, to pass provisions in this energy bill to raise taxes on oil companies by about $32 billion and to apply that increased tax revenue to tax benefits for alternative energy sources, like solar, ethanol, wind, or renewable fuels.

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the New York Times, “This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation’s use of renewable fuels.”

Most environmental and consumer groups enthusiastically embraced the Senate’s adoption of higher fuel efficiency standards, predicting that the provisions could save more than 1 million gallons of gas a day.

--Sally Greenberg