How Mercedes’ BlueTec works, and the 2009 clean-diesel SUVs to come

For automakers to bring the innate fuel efficiency of a diesel engine with peppy performance and low emissions to the U.S. market, it required a national change-over to ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, the development of precisely controlled engines, and extensive treatment of exhaust gases. With these goals accomplished, there is a wave of diesel-powered vehicles coming to America despite the price premium on diesel fuel.

Mercedes-Benz has been leading the movement with its 50-state-legal "clean diesels" featuring "BlueTec" technology that mark the culmination of years of scientific research, powertrain engineering, and market preparation. The resulting BlueTec diesels burn cleaner than most gasoline engines and exhibit superior fuel economy at the same time.

This month, Mercedes announced that it would offer a clean-diesel option for three of its 2009-model SUVs: the midsized ML- and R-Class, and the big GL-Class. All will use the same 210-hp, 3.2-liter diesel V6. These should be some of the most fuel-efficient SUVs on the road. Mercedes has estimated that the GL320 BlueTec will record an average of 24 mpg, some 20 to 40 percent better than a comparable gasoline engine. It should also be able to travel 600 miles on a single tank of fuel.

There may have been nothing inevitable about Mercedes’ particular choices for creating a clean diesel. Conceivably a roster of alternative technologies could have accomplished the same thing. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are all developing clean-diesel technology and they’re apt to use their own strategies to bring them to fruition. But the Mercedes BlueTec system just happens to be the first practical mass-market application available in the United States.

What is BlueTec?
It’s the proprietary name for a series of engine technologies, filters, and catalysts that result in low emissions and high fuel economy. It starts with a high-pressure common-rail turbo direct injection diesel engine. "Common rail" refers to the method for injecting precisely the right amount of fuel directly into each cylinder at exactly the right moment. The turbocharger boosts horsepower, and the system recirculates the exhaust gas that powers it in order to consume any unburned fuel.

When exhaust gas leaves the engine, a multi-phase treatment process begins. By their nature, diesels tend to produce high levels of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen known collectively as NOx, and particulate matter, also known as soot. Oxidation catalysts minimize the carbon monoxide and further reduce unburned hydrocarbons. A maintenance-free particulate filter, or soot trap, then reduces soot to nearly undetectable levels.

NOx emissions are the trickiest to deal with. NOx forms in the first place as a result of burning atmospheric air, and every lean-burning engine generates NOx as the ratio of fuel to air in the combustion cycle decreases. Current approaches to trapping or destroying NOx emissions all use catalysts that are vulnerable to degradation in the presence of sulfur. That’s why it was necessary to put the whole country on a diet of ultra-low-sulfur fuel.

Mercedes uses two strategies to deal with NOx, one for cars and one for SUVs. The E320 BlueTec sedan, which we tested last year, attacks NOx with a storage catalyst and a second catalyst called SRC (Selective Catalytic Reduction). Periodically the engine runs rich for a little while, which cleanly purges the NOx storage catalyst.

For heavier vehicles, such as SUVs, Mercedes has adopted a urea-injection system called AdBlue. That’s because the NOx trap technology used in cars would require too-frequent purging and thus reduce fuel economy.

The AdBlue system uses the SRC catalyst and a tank of liquid urea, which is misted into the exhaust stream. When the urea comes in contact with the hot exhaust gas, it releases ammonia, which in turn reacts with NOx and emerges as harmless nitrogen and water. The urea supply is said to be good for 10,000 miles, so it only needs to be refilled at the vehicle’s normal service intervals. Mercedes says that the AdBlue system reduces NOx emissions by 80 percent.

The Mercedes-Benz BlueTec SUVs are slated to go on sale this fall as 2009 models.

— Gordon Hard

Also read "A clean diesel' sedan tops a performance-tuned hybrid" (available to online subscribers).

IIHS study contradicts government on roof crush—more lives could be saved

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has recently published a report looking at vehicle roof strength and its relation to protecting people in rollover crashes. This study raises serious questions about earlier U.S. Government studies that predicted a very minimal positive effect from strengthening vehicle roofs to prevent their caving in during rollover crashes. Before this study there was “no conclusive evidence about the specific contribution of a vehicle’s roof strength to occupant protection.” The IIHS report focused only on midsized, four-door SUVs, and it supports CR’s position on the importance of stronger roofs as one way to mitigate rollover injuries and deaths.

Background: The Government’s roof-crush standard, known as FMVSS 216, hasn’t changed in decades. It was implemented back in 1973 for cars, and extended to light trucks and vans in 1994. This standard specifies a test where a steel plate is pressed against the roof’s edge above the driver’s door and loaded up with a force equal to 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle. The roof is allowed to collapse no more than five inches. The federal government’s auto-safety agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), proposed in 2005 a revised test that would increase the load on the steel plate to 2.5 times the vehicle’s weight.

The upgraded standard also specifies that roof crush cannot exceed the space available above the head of a 50th-percentile male crash dummy. In a follow-up proposal dated January 2008, NHTSA suggested it might extend the test to include both the passenger and driver’s side of the vehicle, instead of just one side of the roof.

Benefits questioned: NHTSA has estimated that its new roof-crush standard would prevent only 13 to 44 fatalities per year. That’s out of some 10,000 rollover fatalities that occur annually. If the standard were raised to three times the vehicle weight instead of 2.5 times, NHTSA estimates life-saving at 49 to 135 fatalities. Meanwhile, NHTSA has pegged the cost to the industry for its new regulation at $88 to $95 million for the 2.5-times-weight load, but at more than 10 times that, $1.2 to $1.3 billion, for the 3-times-weight load.

The IIHS concludes that NHTSA’s life-saving estimates are far too conservative. The IIHS examined just 11 vehicles, midsized four-door SUVs. But it concluded that if they had all had roofs as strong as the strongest among them, the 2000-2004 Nissan Xterra, then about 212 of the 668 deaths that occurred in those SUVs in 2006 would have been prevented.

Both NHTSA and the IIHS assert in their reports that electronic stability control will go a long way toward preventing rollover injuries and fatalities because ESC seems to be highly effective at preventing rollover in the first place. However, even with ESC, vehicles can still trip over a curb and roll, or roll down an embankment. Higher roof strength limits would help prevent injuries form these accident scenarios. Side-curtain air bags are expected to reduce fatalities and injuries when a rollover does happen, both by cushioning occupants and by preventing occupant ejection.

Nevertheless, the IIHS believes that the link between roof strength and injury risk remains. For instance, even if a vehicle is equipped with side-curtain air bags, they may not work so well if the roof collapses and the vehicle’s doors pop open. “There will still be rollovers,” says the IIHS Communications Director Russ Rader, “even when all vehicles have stability control.”

—Gordon Hard

Read “Raising the roof standard for rollover safety.” See Consumers Union’s stand on roof crush from 2005. Learn more about car safety in our Safety section and in the CR Safety blog.

Surviving St. Patrick's Day on the road

Everybody knows that drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. The full tally is staggering; the federal government's latest numbers state that more than 17,000 alcohol-related traffic deaths occurred in 2006. The worse news is that fatalities have reached a plateau. The anti-drunk-driving measures have lost effectiveness, as evidenced by the fact that death rates have not improved for several years. Now we approach St. Patrick's Day, one of those annual celebrations where heavy drinking and a general spirit of bonhomie are encouraged by long tradition. What to do? Be aware and be prepared.

Eight survival tips

1. Stay off the road. If you really want to avoid a traffic accident, or worse, simply don't be in traffic. This is especially true at night, when most alcohol-related fatalities take place. So stay home. If you're gonna party anyway, have the party at your house, make it a sleep-over for your friends' sake, or plan to stay over if you go to a friend's house for planned overindulgence. Be sure to arrive at your evening destination during daylight hours.
2. Use a designated driver. If you have to party at night, arrange for a designated, sober driver. It's best if the designated driver is selected before the party, and, of course, is a safe and reliable driver to begin with. When all else fails, take a taxi home.
3. Be a designated driver. Stay straight, save lives. It's that simple.
4. Know your limit. Will drinking two beers in one hour impair your driving? It could if you weigh 130 lbs. or less. Maybe not if you weigh 160 lbs. or more. Intoxication is legally measured by blood-alcohol content, or BAC. Any individual may process (metabolize) alcohol faster or slower than average. On the whole, alcohol Impairment is present in the average adult when the BAC reaches .05 percent. The legal limit, meaning the point at which you will be arrested for drunk driving, is .08 in most places. That's when the ability to accurately steer, brake, and judge distances is impaired for the average person. (See a handy BAC calculator.)
5. Ride in a safe car. Some crashes are unavoidable, no matter what time of the year it is. If a driver--drunk or otherwise--swoops into your path, you want to be in a crash-worthy vehicle. In general, we recommend people purchase vehicles that have performed well in both crash tests and our own dynamic evaluations. Understanding no one will buy a car for just one night on the town, consider taking a larger, more modern vehicle over an older model with fewer safety features at this time of greater road risk. (If you want a sobering reality check, see our safety ratings, as well as crash test videos.)
6. Wear seat belts. Wearing your safety belt is the single best insurance against injury or fatality in any kind of crash.
7. Ride in the back seat. Sometimes you can't choose the vehicle you ride in or who drives it. But usually you can choose where to sit. In most crashes, the rear seat is a better place to be than the front. Be sure to have the head rest properly elevated and wear a seat belt.
8. Watch out for the other guy. If you see someone on the road who appears to be under the influence, don't take chances.  Get the plate number and call 911.  You may be saving someone's life.

Sober reminder: Don't live to regret
Party time can end pretty suddenly when a drunk driver kills or maims himself, passengers and/or people in other cars or pedestrians. The pronoun "he" is used advisedly: In more than 80 percent of alcohol-related deaths, the drunk driver was a man. Alcohol-related traffic deaths aren't limited to drivers, though. More than 1,500 tipsy pedestrians get killed on the road every year, too. If still in doubt, see Tip 1, above.

Be safe and enjoy the holiday!

—Gordon Hard

Geely - Lost in translation

It seems that every year the Detroit auto show plays host to an indigenous Chinese automaker that isn't ready for prime time. Like last year, the Geely display was humiliatingly mounted in the hallway outside the main exhibit area, near a snack shop. It consisted of just two cars: a terrific knockoff of the classic tall-roofed London-style taxi and an unexceptional compact sedan, the FC, which reminds us of a Nissan Sentra from a couple generations back.

While Geely is the largest privately-owned carmaker in China, it only started making cars in 1999. Most of the press conference was devoted to a safety system designed to prevent loss of control in the event of a tire blowout. Apparently it's a rapid-reacting stability control system linked to a tire pressure monitor. Geely says it makes its own engines and transmissions, which seemed a substantial boast given the pride and enthusiasm with which this news was announced. A Geely officer mentioned that the company makes cars costing from $6,000 to $60,000, but didn't get too specific on what those cars were. The press conference ended about there. So, one reporter asked, "When are you planning to sell Geely cars here, and at what price?" After a good deal of translation, the answer came back that there are not yet any firm plans.

To figure out what was what, I turned to the Geely press materials, a 32-page glossy booklet printed on heavy stock. There, the sense of confusion descended into real bafflement. Describing the car labeled FC, the text seems to refer to it as the Vision. Here is a quote: "In motion, it flows as smoothly as unrestrained; when still, it looks grand and magnificent. The intelligent crystal head lamps look smart and resplendent, as if to display the maturity and glamour of an outstanding figure in the commercial circle, where it will certainly be welcomed as required by the fashion." Now, that's marketing talk at a whole new, paradigm-shaking level.

Of another compact, the CK, there is a section headed "Speeding up Freely." There under the subhead "Outstanding security assurance" is this statement: "Free Warship is of advanced structure... What is the most worth mentioning is the outstanding secure environment provided for the owner of the car by the 28 aspects of its three-dimensional security system!"

Owners of two-dimensional systems, cry your eyes out.

My personal favorite of the almost-comprehensible media information was the unfortunate admission that the Geely Coupe has "the new German Bosch M7.9.7 fuel ejection system."

We just can't wait to get our hands on one of those.

—Gordon Hard

See our complete coverage of the 2008 Detroit auto show. And discuss the event in our auto show forum.

Event Data Recorders keep cars plugged in for safety

In this final installment, we look at how Event Data Recorders work in the real world:

Need for better information
Earlier this year, we attended a traffic safety conference called LifeSavers, which held a seminar on Event Data Recorders (EDRs) and what their role should properly be. The attendees, mostly professionals in the traffic-safety field, seemed to broadly agree that a lot more information is needed about actual crashes.

That's because most of the time, technical information about any particular crash is pretty sketchy. Out of the six million or so annual crashes, the federal government takes a close look at only about 5,000. Other crashes are investigated at the local level, but the results aren't gathered into any single database. Particularly with non-fatal, injury-only crashes, there just isn't enough data-gathering going on.

The prospect of all cars one day carrying some accurate device that would record the crash event makes road-safety types salivate.

EDRs are not infallible
However, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) official at the conference, A.B. "Chip" Chidester, pointed out some problems with relying too much on EDR data. The EDR is sometimes damaged or destroyed in the crash, rendering its information suspect. The EDR uses a backup power source in the form of a capacitor, but if the car's main power system is disabled, the capacitor may exhaust itself just getting the air bags to deploy. Sometimes no, or incorrect, crash data is recorded because of that or because one of the sensor wires is broken in the crash.

Chidester's main point was that EDRs cannot at this point take the place of professional crash reconstructionists. On-site inspections remain vital. The EDR can validate what the crash investigator finds, but it can't take the place of a full investigation.

The last analysis
What does the future hold? On the technical side there's a need for more robust and fool-proof technology. On the legal side, we need clear laws spelling out the consumer's rights.

It seems clear that data recorders will become more common and will be able to gather more comprehensive information in the coming years. The story they can tell is just too useful to imagine that EDRs will be outlawed. But as this enticing technology develops, we need strong safeguards to insure that crash data is not misused. Thankfully, that is the direction that most state legislatures are taking.

--Gordon Hard

Also read: "Black boxes, crash investigations, and your privacy."

Black boxes, crash investigations, and your privacy

What should we think about Event Data Recorders (EDRs), those electronic devices built in to many cars that record vehicle information in the few seconds just before and after a crash? Are they pivotal to lifesaving, another Big Brother threat to privacy, or both?

Depending on their level of sophistication, EDRs can note information such as pre-crash speed, brake use, seat-belt use, and air-bag deployment. They could gather more information, such as steering angle, braking forces, occupant position, and so forth.

On the one hand, that information is very helpful to crash investigators and safety researchers and can help engineers design safer cars. On the other hand, many people think of these "black boxes" as unwelcome tattle-tales or at the least an invasion of privacy.

You, the law, and EDRs
Who should have access to EDR data is a contentious legal issue, and state laws vary in how much protection they offer to car owners from the prying eyes of, say, insurance companies or law enforcement personnel. At least 10 states have adopted laws on the subject since 2004, and many more state legislatures have begun crafting them.

Federal law will oblige automakers to disclose the existence of EDRs to car-buyers as of the 2011 model year. But several states have done that already. Most of the 20-plus states with laws on the books or pending require the existence of an EDR to be disclosed.

Another common legal theme is that the car owner owns the data and doesn't have to reveal it to anyone without a warrant or court order. Some states, such as New York, let crash researchers have access to the data but without identifying the car owner. Several states plan to limit or ban identity information from going to insurance companies or they prohibit insurance companies from using this data to calculate a person's insurance premium.

Grabbing the data
Most new-model cars are equipped with some form of EDR. Usually, it helps coordinate the computerized split-second, decision-making process that links crash sensors to safety systems like air bags and automatic seat-belt pretensioners. For instance, if your car has a multi-stage air bag system, the EDR gathers data on vehicle speed and who is buckled up to determine which air bags should deploy and at what level of force.

However, you can probably imagine a situation where if you were in a crash, you wouldn't necessarily want anyone to know how fast you were traveling beforehand. On the other hand, if some reckless driver crashes into you, then you might like for the EDR in their car to prove their guilt.

The EDR data exists as cryptic computer code and that it takes specialized gear to download it and proprietary software to interpret it. So whether you "own" the data or not, you cannot access it without help from your car's dealer or some other technical representative.

In a future blog post, we will continue our look at EDRs.

--Gordon Hard

Can Cerberus teach Chrysler new tricks?

The forced separation of Chrysler from Daimler A.G., Mercedes’ parent, is bound to shake up Detroit as all eyes focus on Cerberus Capital Management, the private-equity company that that just bought Chrysler for the fire-sale price of about $7.5 billion. Although the United Auto Workers have signed off on the deal, it’s hard to imagine that they will be happy with the new owners, who are known for ruthless cost-cutting in pursuit of profits. Recall that in Greek mythology Cerberus is the snarling, three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell. Plainly, Cerberus Capital Management didn’t pick up Chrysler out of philanthropy. One way or another they will turn it into a cash machine.

The woes of the domestic auto industry are largely self-inflicted. Chrysler, Ford, and GM are all hobbled by “legacy costs”--pension and medical coverage for untold thousands of former employees. Foreign competitors, based in countries with nationalized health care and other government benefits, don’t have the same financial ball and chain. But the real problem has been the products. Too often, domestics come late to the party with technical innovations and too rarely produce cars with world-class quality and reliability.

The fact is, Honda and Toyota have proved successful because the cars are good, not because they’re cheap. The American consumer has been quite logically migrating to Japanese cars for more than 20 years for precisely that reason.

In recent years Chrysler has made a name for itself in just one area, styling. The PT Cruiser and the 300 sedan have been hits because they look different from everything else and because they offer the spaciousness and/or utility that American consumers want. But you can’t cruise on looks alone. Even though Chrysler has broadened its product portfolio in the last few years, its newest offerings, such as the Chrysler Sebring and the Dodge Avenger, Caliber, Charger, and Nitro, and the Jeep Commander, Compass, and Patriot are all mediocre performers lacking in refinement based on Consumer Reports testing.

About ten years ago I asked Bob Eaton, then Chrysler’s chairman, why the company had so many product-quality problems. He replied, “Well, unfortunately, in our last reorganization we fired everybody who knew how to make a car.” If Cerberus repeats that mistake, Chrysler could finally come to the end of its long, sad road. Let’s hope this new owner can teach the old dog a few tricks.

--Gordon Hard

Why people don’t buckle up, and why they should

Various studies have identified the reasons some people are reluctant to buckle up. Among them are the erroneous perceptions that seat belts don’t actually work well, that accidents happen only to other people, that belts aren’t needed on short trips, or that you don’t need one if you’re in, say, a big, heavy pickup.

Other arguments that non-belt-wearers cite:

• Belts are uncomfortable
• Belts can trap you in a crash
• You’re better off being “thrown clear”
• Belt use is a matter of personal freedom
• The police “are spread too thin around here to catch me”

As we learned at an annual traffic-safety conference called Lifesavers, safety researchers have developed some effective counter-arguments that may soon appear in messages aimed at belt-resistors:

• Most people who die in traffic accidents are unbelted.
• Seventy-five percent of the people “thrown clear” (ejected during a crash) are killed.
• Most collisions happen on short trips.
• People in pickups have a higher crash-death rate than those in any other type of vehicle.
• If you think belts are uncomfortable, consider a wheelchair.

Perhaps the trickiest argument is the personal-freedom assertion: “I decide what’s right for me.” The savvy safety psychologists have a good series of arguments to persuade people otherwise:

• You have no control over other drivers, who could crash into you at any time.
• Other unrestrained passengers can injure you by flying into you during a crash.
• You take more positive control over your life when you buckle up than when you do not.

--Gordon Hard

Multipoint seat-belt safety campaign

To address the 20 percent of vehicle occupants who still ride without a seat belt, state and federal safety professionals will soon be launching local media blitzes to drive home the buckle-up message. The campaigns go local, featuring stories in small-town newspapers and local TV stations about the importance of belt use. A major national "Click it or Ticket" campaign is scheduled to kick off May 21st. You may also see advertised warnings, perhaps even in neighborhood movie theaters, that police are preparing random check-points to catch people not wearing belts. If you haven't got the message from the newspaper or TV, you might get it from a police officer writing you a ticket at the side of the road.

While a fine can be a strong deterrent to riding unbelted, the real motivation for wearing a seat belt should be accident "survivability." Most people can pay a fine, but none of us can overcome the laws of physics in a car accident. Just ask New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine.

If the message doesn't reach you, the police will
The vigorous visible enforcement component of the campaign involves police conducting intensely stepped-up traffic stops over short prescribed periods, such as holiday weekends, or at random intervals thereafter. Federal and state governments are putting aside more money for this. The idea here is that visible enforcement gets people into the habit of buckling up, if for no other reason than to avoid a stiff fine.

The key message is that the enforcement isn't a one-time thing. What researchers have discovered is that to be truly effective at changing people's habits, authorities have to run follow-up crackdowns in the same area several times.

So, if you start seeing posters or ads around your town with the slogan "Click it or Ticket," make sure your belt is fastened and check your passengers. Buckling should be a habit. The fear of a fine might get your attention, but self-preservation should be motivation enough. Corzine's 12 broken ribs and shattered leg could be a powerful reminder of the consequences of thinking you're above the seat-belt laws.

--Gordon Hard

Seat belt crackdown

Overall, about 80 percent of U.S. car occupants buckle up. But the 20 percent or so who do not fasten their belts account for almost 60 percent of the crash fatalities. Moreover, while belt use has increased significantly in recent years, it's not high in every part of the country. 

If we want to cut traffic deaths in a big way--by saving hundreds or even thousands of lives per year--then making more people buckle up is one of the few options that's readily available, socially acceptable, and low-cost.

If you are not in the habit of buckling your seatbelt when you drive, be ready for a ticket. In March we attended an annual traffic-safety conference called Lifesavers where hundreds of local, state, and federal safety professionals were passing around advice on how best to crack down on people who just will not buckle up. And they mean business.

Their common strategy is vigorous and visible enforcement of existing safety-belt laws, targeting those types of drivers that typically resist wearing safety belts:

• Young males
• Rural drivers
• Pickup truck owners

In addition, a major national "Click it or Ticket" campaign is scheduled to kick off May 21st.

The bottom line:
If you’re a young, rural guy driving a pickup, look out. The cops are coming to get you. To get you to buckle up, that is.

--Gordon Hard

Why Sweden rules in road safety

To paraphrase a classic quote, the Swedes are different from you and me. They have more money, yes, but they also have more sense. At a recent annual traffic-safety conference called Lifesavers, we listened to a presentation by Roger Johansson, who has the wonderful title of Chief Strategist, Traffic Safety, for the Swedish Road Administration. This organization is roughly analogous to our Department of Transportation.

Making good better
At the Chicago event, Johansson outlined how Sweden, which already had one of the safest road systems in the world, set out to make it safer. And it seems to be succeeding. For instance, they have reduced traffic deaths among children younger than 15 years old from over 100 in the 1970s to fewer than 10 per year nationwide since 2004.

Johansson speaks with quiet calm and European charm. One of his key messages: "If what we are doing isn't working, then maybe doing more of it won't get us very far. So maybe let's try some things that are radically new." Starting 10 years ago, Sweden embarked on a program called Vision Zero, which combined conventional approaches such as speeding and drunk-driving crackdowns.

The idea of Vision Zero is not zero crashes, but rather zero fatalities and serious injuries.

A key tenet of this approach: "It's not the accident that kills--it's the kinetic energy. The biomechanical tolerance of human tissue is the limiting factor for the road transport system." But people do not perceive kinetic energy, or the energy of motion. What to do? Separate people from sources of kinetic energy.

How Sweden addresses this challenge:

• Separate pedestrians from the roadway. Sidewalks shouldn't be next to the pavement. Separate them with fences or bushes or other barriers so pedestrians don't wander into the road, and vehicles don't venture onto the sidewalk.
• Get rid of traffic lights wherever possible. "Traffic-light intersections are a safety catastrophe," says Johansson. Wherever possible, roundabout intersections are to be used.
• The worst kind of highway is straight, wide and flat, with no barriers. Such roads encourage speeding, lane-change crashes, and head-on collisions. Instead, guard rails are placed between opposing lanes and along road sides wherever possible.
• Slow the traffic in urban and suburban areas. Use traffic-calming techniques, such as narrow, gently curving roads separated by median strips.
• Rate roadways on a four-star scale for the inherent safety of their design. Now in place across most of Europe, roads or stretches of roads are therefore rated according to their risk. National maps or lists of rated roads are available on the Web, under the aegis of an organization called EuroRAP, the European Road Assessment Program.

Applying an ethics-driven approach:

• Ultimate responsibility rests with system designers. Don't blame just road users for traffic deaths. Is the roadway designed to be safe for its users? And are automobiles designed to protect their occupants?
• Road users are also responsible for following the traffic rules. They need to be educated about what they have the right to expect in safety and protection from the car and the road it travels on, so they can make rational choices.
• Children and pedestrians and some passengers are "involuntary road users." It can never be ethically acceptable to put those people at risk.
• Who needs traffic safety education? Not the kids. Government-funded traffic safety education for children. Instead, put the money into educating parents, school staff, and traffic engineers.
• It is up to parents and society to provide a safe environment, such as bicycle lanes, bike helmets, and child seats in cars.

--Gordon Hard

Lincoln MKR concept car continues to turn heads

I was pleased to see the MKR again in New York, as it is one of those rare cars that looks better in person than it does in photographs. The long hood, flowing, sinuous body lines, and big wedge-shaped chrome grille give it the elegance a luxury cruiser should have. This second encounter serves as a reminder of a secondary benefit of new-car shows, the ability for manufacturers to introduce concepts, design, and technology, and for consumers to glimpse the possible cars of tomorrow.

Lincoln unveiled the MKR concept at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit last January. Rather than allow just a one-time viewing, the MKR has traveled on the auto-show circuit with the potential for hundreds of thousands more show-goers to set eyes on it.

What this reporter finds unusual about the MKR is that for the first time in a great while, Lincoln has a car design that stands out from the crowd, at least in terms of looks. A few years ago Cadillac did something similar with the CTS whose crisp lines were later applied to the DTS and STS sedans.

The MKR as shown will not be built. It's a design exercise that demonstrates some styling cues promised for the next generation of Lincoln production cars. Those include a tail-light strip that runs horizontally across the whole width of the trunk, as well as the big, prominent chrome grille and a long style line running along the body sides.

The concept MKR is called a "four door coupe," although it's not exactly clear why it shouldn't be considered a sedan. The slope of the roof? The thickness of the middle roof pillar? Who knows?

The MKR concept has no visible door handles. Instead, the doors are opened by small chrome buttons that blend into the window trim. Clever but probably not practical.

The interior goes farther out into unreality, with a sweeping fore-and-aft console that effectively erects a partition between the two rear seats. Interior trim also employs a lot of "green" recycled or recyclable materials such as "chemical-free leather" and soy-based seat foam. Maybe that's supposed to make you feel better about driving a huge, powerful car. The MKR has a rear-wheel-drive chassis and a turbocharged version of Ford's newest 3.5-liter V6, said to be good for 415 horsepower. So much for being green. However, if Lincoln's next flagship looks like the MKR, then it will turn plenty of heads at future auto shows and on the street. 

--Gordon Hard

Meeting the Chevrolet triplets

This week we saw the unveiling of three concept minicars under the Chevrolet banner. From where I sat in the back of the crowded press conference, the sound was distorted, and it seemed that designer Ed Welburn was saying Chevrolet "Beast," "Crew," and "Trash." In fact, the names are Beat, Groove, and Trax. These are strictly design exercises, meaning that they are intended to be lookers, not drivers. In fact, if you looked underneath a couple of the cars, you could see plywood framework and metal braces.

These concepts are tall-roofed small cars, made for 1.0-liter engines and with seating for five. Like the Chevy Aveo but more in-your-face. In fact, all of these came from GM's Korean design studio, and if any are built it will be on a GM/Daewoo platform. The pictures are self-explanatory: The Trax looks foreshortened like a bulldog, the Groove like a version of the retro-modern HHR, and the Beat like a flying insect with its wings folded.

Apparently Chevy people came to refer to these three from Korea as "the triplets," and for the introduction Chevy produced a cute trio of identical models to stand next to the cars looking pretty. These are the blond, 25-year-old Barbadero sisters, Cynthia, Carolyn, and Christine, model/singer/actresses from Cinnaminson, New Jersey. Appropriately enough, these triplets, like the cars, are very small when you get up close: five-foot-nothing in the case of the girls, Aveo-size in the case of the cars.

Before we met the triplets, meaning the Barbaderos, we witnessed a kind of fakey young and raw New York street posse who did a well-choreographed and slightly raunchy dance around the cars accompanied by unconscionably loud dance-club music. I don't know what makes automakers think that a footsore crowd of working journalists wants to hear this stuff at ten in the morning. Or ever. We only really want hard information, prices, and schedules, and after that we want to yak with each other, compare notes, and talk shop. Commercial interruptions aren't high on the list of welcome guests.

Bob Lutz, GM Vice Chairman, gave the pre-intro intro, and one of his points was that "great cars make great brands; it's not the other way around." Well, I can't argue with that. It's essentially what we've said all along, except that to us brands and brand loyalty are only as good as, "What have you done for me lately?" We'd probably say, "Forget the brand, it's all about the product."  Bob Lutz owns his own MiG. No one would call that a great brand in the world of fighter aircraft. Must be a gas (OK, a lot of gas) to fly, though.

As for the three-pint-sized cars, my ears are still ringing and my notebook is thin of hard facts on what may be a more important unveiling for shareholders than consumers.

-- Gordon Hard

The many faces of Tribeca

Subaru’s first “real” SUV, has received some serious plastic surgery for 2008, with both a nose job and implants at the rear end. It also had its name shortened, from Tribeca B9 to just Tribeca. Since the Tribeca B9 went on sale in May 2005 it sold only 35,000 copies, which is puny for a mass-market automaker. Subaru should get credit for restyling the sheet-metal so soon after its introduction. A lot of people seemed to hate the looks of the B9. Subaru executive Tom Doll called the new styling “less polarizing.” But you’ll never please everybody.

Observers in the blogosphere say the new grille reeks of Chrysler, and they have a point. I’d add that the Tribeca now reminds of the Hyundai Santa Fe. And a lot of other cars, including the Subaru Legacy. So let’s admit that no one has a monopoly on geometric shapes. If the new Tribeca looks somewhat like some other SUVs, so what? Wouldn’t most folks prefer to look like the girl next door than that weird kid with the funny clothes?

The other major upgrade was a revised six-cylinder “boxer” engine that grew to 3.6 liters from 3.0, picking up just six more horsepower in the process. Hopefully it will have more oomph than the minor horsepower boost would suggest. More significantly, the 3.6 uses regular fuel rather than premium, and it’s said to get a five-to-10 percent improvement in fuel economy. The Tribeca might need more than that to get it out of the starting blocks. We clocked the old engine at just 16 mpg on average, so a boost to 17 or 18 mpg is not much to write home about.

The up side, from our previous testing, gives the Tribeca good marks for agility and a quiet, comfortable ride. Rear seating remains a little tight, though. The IIHS gave the Tribeca B9 top marks in crash testing front, side, and rear, and we wouldn’t expect that to change. It has also proven to have above-average reliability, and unless something fundamental goes wrong with the revised engine, then reliability should remain on the right path, as well.

Click here for another perspective on the Tribeca’s new beak.

--Gordon Hard

Thinking inside the box

The Ford Flex is called a “crossover” SUV, but really it’s an all-wheel drive minivan with swing-out rear doors. Minivan…SUV, whatever floats your boat. And the Flex is a bit of a boat. It’s got six- or seven-passenger seating, with some cargo space behind the third row. It looks at first almost like a super-sized Scion xB, exploring the possibilities of a cube, or in this case a brick, but with stylish horizontal grooves along the barn-door sides that effectively trick the eye. The version unveiled at the New York Auto Show had six-person 2/2/2 seating. The middle-row seats had a big center console between the chairs that contained an honest-to-goodness small refrigerator. Skip the fridge, and you can get a split-bench center row that seats three, bringing passenger-carrying to seven, a la minivan.

The Flex has a long wheelbase, almost 118 inches, and power comes from Ford’s quite good 3.5-liter V6, here endowed with 260 hp. The transmission is a smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic. Front-wheel drive is standard, and AWD is optional. Prices have not been announced, but we’d estimate mid to high $30s.

Much has been made, including by Ford’s new CEO Alan Mulally, about how many SUVs Ford needs to serve essentially the same market. The Flex brings Ford’s “crossover” tally to four, including the Escape, Edge, and Taurus X, formerly called the Freestyle. On top of those, Ford also has the Explorer and Expedition full-frame haulers. It would seem that the Escape and Edge are dueling for one market while the Taurus X and Flex are fighting each other for next-size-up. The Edge would seem to have the “edge” over the Escape, since it’s more modern, and the Flex could ease out the Taurus X, if push came to shove.

--Gordon Hard

Hybrid cars and the vanishing tax credit

Back in 2005, Congress enacted what looked like a generous tax subsidy for people who bought gas/electric hybrids and other alternative-fuel vehicles. Tax credits of up to $3,150 promised a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income-tax liability, though many consumers may now find themselves--or their vehicles--ineligible. The devil is in the details, and they can hit you on two fronts:
•    The credits are gradually phasing out for the most popular models.
•    People who are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) can’t claim the credit at all.

Disappearing act
The 2006 tax credit size depended on a vehicle’s estimated fuel economy. While a Toyota Prius was eligible for a credit of $3,150, a four-wheel-drive Ford Escape Hybrid qualified for only  $1,950, and a two-wheel-drive Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid got only a token $250.

However, if a manufacturer--not just a brand--sells more than 60,000 hybrids total, the credit starts going away. The credit has already begun to phase out for Toyota and Lexus hybrids purchased after September 30, 2006, and others will follow suit as they reach the sales volume target. The 2006 Prius’ tax break, for instance, dropped in half to $1,575 if it was purchased after that date, and it will split again to $788 between April and the end of September, 2007. After that, the Prius rebate disappears altogether.

Adding up AMT impact
As mentioned, if you are subject to the federal Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, the news is worse because you don’t get the alternate motor vehicles tax credit at all.

The AMT was designed in 1969 to make the wealthiest taxpayers pay at least a little something in income tax. Since then, largely because inflation has marched on while the AMT has not, more and more taxpayers are snagged by the AMT dragnet every year. About 4 million people are expected to be affected by the AMT in this tax season (filing for 2006).

Bill Abrams, a principal at the Los Angeles law firm of Abrams Garfinkel Margolis and Bergson, LLP,  explained how the AMT has snuck up on a lot of people in the last few years: “It’s worst on the East and West Coasts, where lots of people have high property taxes and state income taxes. The AMT effectively limits deductions for those things. So, the more taxes you’re already paying, the worse the bite from AMT.”   

“For people in the middle of the country, these tax credits were terrific,” Abrams adds. “But the tax system has so many moving parts that you can’t really generalize about who benefits and who doesn’t.”

As incomes rise with inflation, more and more people have greater than $100,000 in adjusted gross income. Those who itemize their taxes are forced to calculate their taxes twice: once the traditional way and again using the more unforgiving AMT formula. For people with seven-figure incomes, though, the AMT doesn’t really matter because they’re already disqualified from many of the tax breaks extended to the middle and upper-middle class. 

(To get a better idea of whether you'll owe the AMT, visit the IRS AMT Assistant.)

AMT in action
The alternative-fuel tax credit mirage tends to hit people on the bottom fringes of the AMT-eligibility scale. For example, take a hypothetical couple in Connecticut who have a joint income that just pushes them into AMT territory. They have three children, and qualify for deductions for their town real estate tax, state income tax, unreimbursed business expenses, and exemptions for the dependent children. In total they owe $32,000 in federal taxes, but $32,500 with the AMT.

If they had bought a hybrid vehicle in 2006 that carried a $3,000 tax credit, that would have theoretically reduced their federal tax to $29,000. Since the AMT disallows that credit, along with the state/local tax deductions and dependent exemptions, their tax owed remains at $32,500, which is $3,500 more than they’d owe if AMT hadn’t been a factor.

The bottom line
If you’re considering a hybrid or some other alternative-fuel vehicle because the federal tax credit makes it look financially appealing, you could be disappointed. And you may not know the real out-of-pocket cost until it’s too late, perhaps months after a purchase when you (or your tax preparer) can fully access your annual tax liability. The lesson here is to consult your accountant to confirm your eligibility for a federal tax incentive.

--Gordon Hard

Learn more about taxes in the Consumer Reports Personal Finance section, as well as gain insights from the Consumer Reports Tax Blog.

Why we test millionaires' sports cars

The sports car tire marks barely cooled on tarmac at our test facility when we began receiving e-mails from subscribers annoyed with us for testing eight high-end sports cars such as the Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper, and Porsche 911 in the October 2006 edition of Consumer Reports. (The "Fantasy Sports" report and related reviews are available to online subscribers.) Sure, the collective staff enjoyed experiencing these extreme performance machines, but like all testing, we conducted the analysis to help you, the consumer.

To address the common question, here's why we covered the high-end sports coupes and convertibles:

* Cars in this class make an implicit claim that they are the best in some respects: fastest, sharpest, most luxurious, and so forth. Our job is to test claims like that. And we bring the same skepticism and objectivity to testing fancy cars that we bring to any other product.

* The tests give us--and you--an early look at technology and safety systems that may show up in conventional cars in the near or distant future. Some in this group happened to set new records for us in such key areas as acceleration (Dodge Viper and Corvette Z06) and emergency handling (Porsche 911). Such benchmarks tell us where the performance ceiling is. That information is useful to everyone.

* Premium models are often purchased by consumers with only limited, hands-on experience, due to the vehicles' exclusive nature. With these exotic machines, our test engineers were able to report on the objective performance, as well as the personalities, which often differed from the marketed persona or perceived image.

* While high-end sports cars are important for what we can learn from them, we also didn't want to use up the car-report pages of two issues of Consumer Reports to tell you about them. So we gathered them together and printed the story once.

* Articles like this one are a little like a travelogue. Even if you never plan to visit a place, you might enjoy the documentary.

We'll come back to earth in the December issue with a report on six economical small cars, including the new Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, and Toyota Yaris. They're priced from about $12,000 to $15,000, a fraction of the $60,000 to $100,000 that the sports cars set us back.

--Gordon Hard

Blind zones - Look out behind you

You probably don't realize it, but there is a blind zone immediately behind the rear bumper of every vehicle. When backing up, even when you turn around and look, you can't see what's there--it could be a bike, a pet, or a child. Side and rear view mirrors don't help. Sadly, more than 100 children have died in the last year alone from being backed over, and many, many more have been injured.

These blind zones vary by vehicle and by driver height. To increase awareness and help shoppers select a vehicle with the best rearward visibility, Consumer Reports has been testing blind zones since 2003. The measurements are made for two heights:  5'8" and short 5'1" drivers. Those results are available online.

There is a huge range in blind zones; they range from two feet for a 5'8" driver in a Porsche Boxster (with the top up) to 69 feet for a short driver in a Jeep Commander when all three rows of seats are raised. Blind zone size is strongly dictated by styling; the trend toward high beltlines raises the bottom of the window sill, increasing the blind zone. Supposedly, smaller windows make occupants psychologically feel more secure, but the reduced visibility actually reduces safety.

There are steps you can take when buying a vehicle to reduce the blind zone behind the rear bumper. Beyond picking a model that inherently has a smaller blind zone, you can choose one with a rearview camera. In our tests, these cameras have proven very effective, often reducing the blind zone to zero. You do need to look at the screen before backing up, as well as being aware of the surroundings and situation (to make sure nothing is moving to behind the vehicle), but they provide a very useful tool.

Unfortunately, most vehicles offer a rearview camera only on high trim levels, or as part of a pricey options package. An expensive navigation system is also typically necessary, as it can provide the display screen for the camera. Consumers Union supports proposed legislation that would make blind-zone detection technology standard on vehicles. (You can support the legislation by signing an online petition.)

Other steps are more subtle... Buying a vehicle with a height-adjustable seat can allow a short driver to sit higher in the car, improving their view. The Commander's poor rear visibility is partly because the large, high-mounted third row seat back blocks most of the rear window, leaving only a small porthole. We measure vehicles with all of the seats raised because they are likely to be in that configuration for family-hauling duty; after all, it's a selling point of the vehicle. You can improve visibility by driving with the third-row seat lowered when you don't need it.

Finally, there is no substitute for staying aware and checking the area around the vehicle before and while backing up. It is time we all open our eyes to the real risks of rear blind zones.

--Gordon Hard

Government recalls vs. reliability

Government recalls don’t necessarily match up with our Ratings of overall reliability. Why is that?

• Most cars that are recalled have never experienced the problem they are recalled for. The recall is designed to prevent a potential problem from occurring.

• Respondents to our Annual Questionnaire wouldn’t necessarily complain about a recall, unless they considered a trip to the dealer resulting in downtime a “serious” problem.

• Since many people have recall work done at the same time as a scheduled service, the recall itself may not trigger any special aggravation.

--Gordon Hard

How recalls work

Nearly all government recalls are related to safety issues and are managed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Since 1966, the government has asked manufacturers to recall and fix literally hundreds of millions of vehicles. Most recalls are initiated by the automakers themselves, but many of the largest campaigns have been prompted by the government, in response to consumer complaints.

People often consider a recall to be a black mark. While a recall normally signifies a potential safety defect, a recall also means a defect that was found on a number of cars and a free fix made available to all. Once a problem has been identified and determined to potentially impact a volume of cars, the entire lot is corrected, as there is often no way to isolate which specific examples have the defect, or the propensity to experience a fault based on myriad usage factors.

Research recalls on your vehicle at the NHTSA Web site.

--Gordon Hard

Toyota reliability and recalls

Periodically, a number of subscribers claim that Consumer Reports must be biased in favor of Toyota products, and most-recently cite a rash of well-publicized vehicle recalls as “proof” that our mostly very high scores for Toyotas are not accurate. The truth is, we aren’t biased either for or against any brand.

Every vehicle we test is judged against its peers in our road testing. While reliability scores (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers) from our subscriber surveys serve as one of the criteria for a CR Recommendation, the scores aren’t counted in our overall performance Ratings. Derived from the Annual Questionnaire of our approximately 6 million magazine and Web site subscribers, CR's reliability Ratings represent the subscriber-reported experiences on those cars they themselves own.

Toyota does seem to have had more than its share of recalls lately. In July, Toyota recalled more than 350,000 Highlander and Lexus RX SUVs made between 2004 and 2006. In May, some 170,000 ‘04-’06 Priuses were recalled. Last year, 345,000 ’04-’05 Sienna minivans were recalled. Those are big numbers, but then again, Toyota is a huge manufacturer with a broad product line. Other large manufacturers, such as Ford and GM, have historically had far worse recall numbers than Toyota.

Recalls may not affect our reliability scores because a serious problem crops up too rarely to tip the balance in our reliability survey. A few years ago, we heard from readers and read on forums about a sludge problem with Toyota’s 3.0-liter V6. The people who experienced it were rightly ticked off about it, but that particular grievance didn’t show up often enough in our subscriber survey to hurt the overall score, especially when other components of that model had very few problems. Another Toyota issue, with the 2003 4Runner’s 4.0-liter V6, did show up when it was new, and we noted it in our various mentions of that SUV.

We have certainly noted--and duly reported in our annual April story on Reliability trends that many new cars, Toyotas among them, tend to have some problems in their first year of production. What distinguishes the leading Japanese brands--Honda, Toyota, and Subaru--is that those manufacturers tend to fix those problems fairly quickly.

--Gordon Hard