Misaligned floor mat may have caused calamity

On August 28, 2009, off-duty California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor and three members of his family were killed when the 2009 Lexus ES they were riding in sped out of control, crashed into another vehicle, rolled over, and burned. News reports stated that someone in the Lexus called 911 and reported that the car was speeding out of control and that the brakes weren’t working. Initial police reports said that the driver’s floor mat had interfered with the pedals. (Toyota floor mat shown here as an example.)

It was later reported that the Lexus, a dealer loaner car, may have been fitted at the dealership with accessory all-weather floor mats that were too big for that model, and so could not be secured properly to the floor. (See official statement.) It has been speculated that the loose floor mat may have gotten entangled in such a way that the accelerator pedal was pinned down while preventing the brake pedal from being depressed, but the investigation is not complete. The crash is still being investigated by both California authorities and by a team from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In 2007, Lexus and Toyota issued a floor mat recall due to a problem with the mats potentially getting stuck under the accelerator pedal in certain cars. 
 
Sean Kane, founder of Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., said, “The Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) problem covers a wide array of models and years -- Camry, Tacoma, Sienna, and Lexus. Floor mat interference can and undoubtedly does cause unintended acceleration, but having reviewed hundreds of complaints, there are incidents that defy floor mat interference as a cause.” (Read the Safety Research & Strategies report.)
 
Whatever the actual sequence of events was that led to this freak accident, having loose carpeting or other items in the driver foot well is probably not so uncommon. This crash vividly illustrates that the worst-case scenario sometimes actually happens. If your car has stock floor mats, take the time to make sure they are hooked to their restraint fixtures, if the car is so equipped. If you have aftermarket or accessory floor mats, make sure they are secured and can’t move around in such away as to interfere with pedal travel. Never stack floor mats; there should be only one per person. And always keep travel trash clear of the driver’s foot well.   

Learn more about safety techologies in our car safety section.

—Gordon Hard

2009 Frankfurt Motor Show: Mini Cooper Coupe and Roadster concepts

One of the highlights of the Frankfurt Motor Show is Mini Cooper’s unveiling of coupe and roadster concepts. OK, so that’s two highlights. Either way, these pocket-sized two-seaters are headed for production and eventual sale in the United States, according to corporate parent BMW. The Frankfurt festivities were staged as part of the 50th birthday celebrations for the original Mini, one of the cleverest mergers of fun and frugality in automotive history.

These two additions are brand extensions of the Mini Cooper line, helping to fill out a family that already includes the existing hatchback, cabriolet, and the Clubman wagon. A crossover is expected soon, as well. It’s a pretty clever strategy, since the Mini’s iconic design seems to have no end of appeal. Consider, too, that this gives BMW a channel to market premium small cars to a population that is in no position to buy a new, increasingly pricey BMW this year… or maybe ever.

The coupe and roadster look a little stubby, but they are around the same size as a regular Mini, admittedly with a slightly lower roofline. Disposing of the rear seats makes for more luggage (or roof-stowage) space. Front-passenger leg- and head room was already commodious. The show cars were equipped with the Mini’s largest 1.6-liter turbo engine offering, but we expect the production model will also offer the thriftier normally aspirated engines, as well. 

See our New Car Preview site for more photos of the Mini coupe and roadster, plus check out other new cars heading to market.

 —Gordon Hard

Government study confirms ABS effectiveness, but mysteries linger

A just-released study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finds that antilock brakes (ABS) significantly reduce crashes where people get injured but have no net effect on crashes where people die. (Download pdf.) That’s a big step forward from earlier government studies, which found that fatalities actually increased in cars with antilock brakes. The new study looked at 11 years worth of data, making the sample sizes much larger than in previous efforts.
 
The key finding:
“ABS by itself has close to zero overall effect on fatal crashes, but significantly reduces nonfatal crash involvements by an estimated 6 percent in cars and 8 percent in LTVs [light-truck vehicles such as SUVs and pickups].  Fatal run-off-road crashes do increase significantly with ABS, but now by only 9 percent, rather than the initial 28 percent [reported in an earlier study], as the public has learned how to use ABS correctly. That 9 percent increase is offset by reductions with ABS of other types of fatal crashes – and more importantly, it will be far outweighed by the great anticipated benefits of ESC [electronic stability control].”
 
The fact that ABS-equipped cars reduce the number of crashes resulting in serious injury is good news. While it remains something of a mystery why ABS is over-involved in run-off—the-road fatal accidents, the incidence of that type of crash is expected to plummet as electronic stability control becomes more universal. Already widespread, ESC will be on every car by the 2012 model year. It happens that antilock brakes are a necessary component of a stability control system, so we wouldn’t have ESC unless we already had ABS. (Learn more about ESC.)
   
Nobody has satisfactorily explained why, in the subset of fatal crashes that involves a car running off the road, those with antilock brakes fare worse overall than those without them. Pretty much everybody agrees, and we have demonstrated countless times in our brake tests, that ABS makes for shorter, straighter, more controllable stops, on both wet and dry pavement. One possible explanation is that since ABS lets you steer a car in a panic stop rather than just sliding into whatever you’re braking for, that it’s then possible to steer off the road and get into even more trouble, say by rolling over or side-swiping a tree.
 
Another possibility is that some people are still unused to the groaning and pedal-chugging that happens when ABS activates. Such people might then let off the brake too soon, and thus have a higher-speed, more lethal crash than otherwise.
 
Some have speculated that ABS, like four-wheel drive, breeds a false sense of security in some people, who then drive less cautiously than conditions permit.

The number of car occupants killed every year has been dropping steadily, and recent fatality rates are the lowest ever. We would expect that whatever the number of off-road fatalities was in the years covered by this government study, that number will get steadily lower from now on. That’s because the number of cars equipped with antilock brakes that do not also have stability control is going to diminish every year regardless of any other factor.  

Learn more about car safety.

 —Gordon Hard

Preview: 2011 Hyundai Tucson

Hyundai pulled the covers off its redesigned Tucson small SUV in Korea this week, previewing the second-generation model scheduled to make its Stateside introduction this fall at the Los Angeles auto show. The new Tucson production will begin at the Ulsan, South Korea, manufacturing complex in late 2009.
 
Expected to again slot just a notch below the Hyundai Santa Fe in size and price, the new Tucson has radically different styling than the outgoing model, with cleaner, more dynamic lines akin to other recent Hyundai vehicles. (The updated 2010 Santa Fe will be available with a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine. Production begins late 2009.) The hood slopes down, the fender flares are flattened, and the triangular rear quarter windows taper to a point facing aft.

Interior space is about the same as before, and we expect reasonably high levels of fit and finish. The engine is a 2.4-liter four-cylinder like that in the current Sonata sedan, where it makes 175 hp, mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. (An all-new Sonata begins production in winter 2010.) That engine replaces the outgoing Tucson’s 2.0-liter four-cylinder as well as its fuel-thirsty 2.7-liter V6. Both front- and all-wheel-drive versions will be available. True to Hyundai’s lots-for-the-money marketing strategy, uplevel Tucsons will offer leather upholstery, a navigation system, keyless ignition with push-button start, and other premium touches. 

—Gordon Hard

What do the automakers have against their dealers?

All three domestic manufacturers have been ending franchise agreements and effectively closing dealers. In particular, Chrysler and General Motors have been making headlines for their massive shutdowns, while Ford has been quietly negotiating closures for the last four years.

Chrysler Vice-chairman Jim Press has said that Chrysler’s bankruptcy allows a “once in a lifetime chance to accomplish a right-sized, realigned dealer body.” It seems sensible to ask, then, why any automaker wants to choke off parts of its own distribution channel. After all, the dealers are independent businesses. Since the automakers don’t own the stores, why should they really care if some of them are losing money?

The answer, it turns out, has more to do with long-term business strategy than with an immediate crucial need. Turnover lies at the heart of the problem. Ideally, both dealers and automakers want the maximum volume possible to go through every store. High-volume stores have a rapid sales rate, and product turnover multiplies whatever slender profit they make on each car sold.

With the Detroit Three’s declining market share, these diminished corporate giants find themselves with too many dealers and not enough customers to support them all. Consequently, unsold cars pile up on dealer lots. Those unsold cars tie up capital that could be used productively elsewhere. The current deep recession only magnifies the problem.

Automakers may provide life-support for low-volume dealers in the form of special discounts or other financial help. They also maintain a network of field representatives and other employees devoted to serving the dealers. All those costs impact an automaker’s net earnings. Making a better match between the volume of cars they produce and the number of stores needed to sell them should result in corporate savings and a healthier dealer group. In the end, it’s not that automakers will earn more per car, it’s that they will spend less trying to sell them.

Another consequence of a dealership glut is that those stores compete against each other for whatever customers are available in any given region. And consumers are pretty good at figuring out which dealer has the lowest price. Anybody who has bargained hard for a new car in the last few years knows how effective it is to get up and make for the door if the dealer doesn’t seem interested in offering a good deal.

How dealership closings affect the consumer?

In some ways, it’s good for the consumer when the dealers are willing to battle each other to sell you a car. And with multiple dealers fighting for your business, that’s what can happen. Such competition can inspire some dealers to resort to high-pressure selling of dubious add-ons like extended warranties, VIN-etching, and absurdly high “conveyance” fees. Then again, dealers shutting their doors can be a real inconvenience. Much of the time, inconvenience is all it will be. If your local Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler dealer closes, there is often another one 10 or 15 miles up the road, or on the other side of town. For those in more rural areas, the dealer proximity may be a much more significant issue.

The new landscape promises to be a mixed blessing. For instance, you may have to travel further to get your car serviced. However, fewer, stronger dealerships in theory can provide more inventory to choose from and have the resources to provide better facilities and services.

But if you have had five Chevrolet, Dodge, or Ford dealers in your area and now suddenly you have just one, what’s to prevent those survivors from jacking up prices?

The answer is that they can try, but only to a degree. However optimistic some car dealers may be, they can’t just raise their prices at will because they still have to compete with other brands. The three domestic automakers will remain rivals, plus they face seven Japanese, one Korean, and about a half dozen European makers, and their assorted brands. So, however grandiose Detroit Three dealers’ dreams may be, the hard reality is that in practically every car category consumers still have lots of worthy alternatives. If you don’t like the deal you’re offered, forget about brand loyalty and head for the door.

The bottom line

Dealer cutbacks are tough on local communities and their economies, though they remain an important element in restructuring the struggling domestic automakers. Hopefully, the long-term benefits outweigh the current challenges and impositions.

We will continue to monitor this fast-moving story, reporting here in the Cars blog and also updating advice and news on the Auto Crisis hub.

--Gordon Hard

Chrysler bankruptcy may drag on

An article from Bloomberg.com asserts that Chrysler’s bankruptcy may take up to two years to work out, rather than the 60 days projected by the Obama Administration on April 30. The headline grabbed attention, since it raised the specter that Chrysler would be dead in the water for a lengthy period, which would have dire consequences for its survivability, let alone suppliers, dealers, employees, and other stakeholders.

A closer reading of that article and other reports, though, outlines a slightly different picture, where Chrysler would essentially be divided into two pieces, with Fiat quickly acquiring Chrysler’s best assets (such as the Jeep brand, and perhaps the Dodge Ram truck), while other creditors would be left holding less worthy properties, such as a number of plants Chrysler plans to shutter. That means, in essence, that part of Chrysler could emerge from bankruptcy in the 60-day timeframe as a Fiat subsidiary, or “alliance,” and another part that could languish in bankruptcy court where various debtors would fight it out for the remains. The “new” Chrysler’s major owners would be Fiat, the United Autoworkers, and, for a time, the U.S. Treasury.

We will continue to monitor this fast-moving story, reporting here in the Cars blog and also updating advice and news on the Auto Crisis hub.

--Gordon Hard

Hyundai Equus: White knight or dead horse?

While other auto companies are rapidly shifting into reverse, Hyundai is pushing forward with plans to introduce its first super-luxury sedan, the Equus, to America. First seen at the New York International Auto Show, the Equus will be displayed nationwide this summer as Hyundai seeks to gauge public reaction to this high-end model. (See "The Genesis of Hyundai’s luxury brand?")

In Asian markets, the Equus competes with the prestige-brand flagships such as the BMW 7 Series, Lexus LS, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class. It’s a big, rear-drive cruiser that is a step up in size and price from Hyundai’s upscale Genesis sedan, upon which it is based. Should the Equus be sold in the U.S. market, it would likely come with the same 375-hp, 4.6-liter V8 used in the top-trim Genesis, plus the full panoply of high-end, high-tech interior amenities one expects in the luxury class.

South Korea’s Hyundai has come a long way from the old cheap-and-crummy days to become one of the top brands in quality and reliability. The Equus shows just how far the company has come.

Today, we recommend most current Hyundai models we’ve tested, which is nearly all of them., The question for consumers is how much “image” they’re willing to give up for the sake of underlying quality and value. The luxury market is hard club to join, since so much depends on positive buzz and intangible curb appeal. The key issue of price is not yet settled, either. USA Today speculated that the Equus would weigh in at around $75,000, comparable with the base BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes-Benz flagships. But that’s not the formula Hyundai has followed so far, or indeed, the formula used by Toyota when it launched the Lexus brand. To succeed, the price would probably have to be lower, say under  $60,000.

The Lexus LS met rapid acceptance because it was a terrific car that started out much cheaper than its European competitors, and because it promised Toyota-levels of reliability, something the Europeans still aspire to. Hyundai plowed the same furrow with the Genesis. The V6 version is equipped like a $50,000 car but is priced in the mid-to-high $30s. Therefore, we would expect that Hyundai would try steal a march on the $75,000 luxury corps by starting Equus pricing much lower than that.

Hyundai’s foray into the deep end is not so much a plunge as a toe in the water. The Equus has already launched in South Korea, and the company plans to import only about 100 of them into the U.S. this summer, serving equal parts consumer survey and marketing tool. This approach has much upside, and it reduces the risk of a potential flop, like Volkswagen had with the pricey, heavy Phaeton a few years ago. If the Equus has legs, then Hyundai will have only to ramp up production for its U.S. model as needed. 

How do you think the Equus would be received in the States?

—Gordon Hard

My favorite Pontiac–The Phoenix

In 1982 I bought a luxurious and sporty 1980 Pontiac Phoenix. It may well have been the worst car I ever owned. But my Phoenix’s many dimensions of awfulness provided hooting entertainment for my friends, and valuable lessons in humiliation and disappointment for me.

The 1980 Phoenix, to remind you, was one of GM’s promising front-wheel-drive X cars, downsized but feature-laden compacts designed to cope with a recent “energy crisis.” Gasoline had hit a shocking .70 cents a gallon.

I bought my Phoenix second-hand for $3,000. It was the first car I owned that had power windows, let alone power seats, air conditioning, and a sunroof. The back half of the roof was a padded-vinyl “landau” treatment, giving a sporty touch. Believe me, it was a big step up from my previous car, a 1975 Pinto. I was 30 years old and about (I thought) to get married. The Phoenix looked like the kind of staid but comfortable car that I believed married people were supposed to want.

Like a bad marriage, there were problems from the start that I should have seen coming. The first time I drove it, the engine stalled when I made a hard left turn from a stop light. I though it was a fluke. It wasn’t. The power steering pump drew so much juice from the engine that the carburetor couldn’t cope. I adapted. I coped. I either avoided hard turns from a stop or prepared the way a one-legged man does when about to get out of bed.

Electrical problems became a constant companion. We always stalled at least once on startup, because the Phoenix wanted to remind me who was boss. The whole warning-light array would come on while driving on the highway. That was the Phoenix telling me it was in a very bad mood. The engine then started quitting anytime, anywhere. In six months I was towed to a AAA garage seven times. The garage guys and the dealer all tried their hand at extensive under-hood rewiring. Every repair cost about $300 and worked for at least a week.

The snazzy pop-up sunroof started leaking whenever it rained. The dealer wanted $150 for a new rubber gasket. To heck with that. With a bead of my trusty Eastman 910 adhesive, later made famous as Krazy Glue, I sealed it shut forever. Well, almost.

Any form of self-service turned out to be beyond my abilities. The oil filter, about the size of a baseball, was hard up against the firewall and inaccessible to an adult with normal-sized hands. The battery (I needed three in two years since power-draw was constant even when the car was off) was bolted on at its base, requiring a 12-inch wrench extender, then a rare commodity. Once you undid those bolts, guiding them back in was like steering the Moon Rover from Houston.

One night in lower Manhattan, I hailed a Yellow Cab. Not for a ride, but to get a jump start for the Phoenix. As the engine cranked to life and we undid the cables, a small fire started in the engine bay. I let the hood drop, jumped in the cab, and rode up to Grand Central. The next day AAA hauled away a Phoenix that would never rise from the ashes.

In 1983 I interviewed at Consumer Reports. During my chat with then Editorial Director Irwin Landau, I asked if CR’s autos department had noticed anything screwy with GM’s 1980 X Cars. He directed me to the September, 1979 edition when the magazine had tested four of them. They had averaged 22 defects which turned up during testing. Among them: repeated stalling, stuck automatic choke, a new carburetor needed for the Phoenix, a loosely bolted torque converter that damaged a starter, and a refrigerant hose burned through by coming in contact with the exhaust pipe.

Lesson learned: I should have been a subscriber before I bought this nightmare.

--Gordon Hard

Ford Fusion – The best car you don’t know about

For some odd reason, when people are chatting about new cars, they rarely mention the Ford Fusion. For a really good car that’s been around for a while, the Fusion seems to get less name recognition than Archibald Leach, better known as Cary Grant. That’s a shame. The Fusion is not only one of the very best cars produced by Detroit, but it is one of the best midsized sedans made by any company. (Ford Fusion model overview with ratings, available to online subscribers.)

What makes it good?

For starters, it’s fun to drive, with a good ride and crisp, responsive handling. It’s also the right size, compact enough to be maneuverable yet large enough to seat five people with ease. Then there’s the wide choice of configurations. Besides the usual front-drive configuration, the Fusion also offers an all-wheel-drive model and a full-hybrid version. Sadly, perhaps, not both at the same time.

Two more pluses: Not only does the Fusion have excellent crash-test results but it’s also one of the more reliable cars in our annual auto survey. It is more reliable than the ubiquitous Toyota Camry, an honor it’s held since the Camry’s 2007 redesign.

What we’re testing now: We just bought three front-wheel drive Fusions, which have been updated for the 2010 model year. Both our 175-hp, four-cylinder SE and 240-hp, 3.0-liter V6 versions have a six-speed automatic. The third example is a Hybrid model, which has a four-cylinder engine aided by an electric powertrain that brings net horsepower to 191. Standard safety gear on all includes antilock brakes, stability control, and six air bags.

What price?

Sticker prices ranged from about $22,150 for the basic four-cylinder to $32,400 for our loaded Hybrid, including options and shipping. The V6 SEL stickered at $28,400.

Without any arm-twisting, we paid about $26,000 and change for our just–arrived V6 SEL. That included customer incentives Ford is offering right now and struck us as pretty reasonable considering what was included. Among the goodies was full leather upholstery, heated eight-way power seats, a power moonroof, a good Sony audio system with Sirius satellite radio, the Sync Bluetooth voice-activated audio and communications system, blind-spot and crossing-traffic alert system, rear-view camera, and 17-inch aluminum wheels.

Can’t say but…
It’s too early to make any judgments about driving dynamics or how well all the bits and pieces work together. Given our past experience with several Fusions we’ve already tested, and a few new ones we’ve briefly sampled, we expect the 2010 models to be at least as good as the cars they replaced, all of which we liked. The enduring mystery is why more people don’t already know about this car. 

–Gordon Hard  Photography by Mike Leung.

2009 New York Auto Show: Driving the Volvo XC60 with City Safety

At the New York International Auto Show, I tried out Volvo’s low-speed collision avoidance system, dubbed City Safety. The demo was great fun, and the system might even be helpful to those of us who, in a moment’s inattention, are perfectly capable of crashing into the car ahead while inching through stop-and-go traffic—especially when dealing with NYC rush-hour traffic.

Volvo safety engineers had set up a short roadway of Jersey barriers in the parking lot outside the Javits Center, where the New York auto show takes place. At the near end was a 2010 Volvo XC60, and at the far end, a couple of hundred feet farther along, was a sponge-rubber object vaguely similar to a small car. The City Safety braking feature is a radar-activated low-speed collision avoidance technology. It is active only at speeds of 18 mph or less, and it fully stops your car only when traveling at about 9 mph or less. Between 10 and 18 mph, the system provides “mitigation” rather than complete avoidance. In other words, you may still hit the car ahead, but less forcefully.

With a Volvo rep riding shotgun, I was told to drive straight toward the target “car” at up to 10 mph and see what happens. Approaching the Red Grooms-like soft sculpture, the XC60 jammed on its brakes, preventing collision—as promised. With my foot on the gas pedal, the antilock brakes intervened with a satisfying crunch, and the SUV halted prior to impact with no more drama than found in the typical Big Apple cab ride.

Volvo says the system can prevent whiplash injuries in the car ahead, and perhaps whiplash to yourself that may arise from the rebound effect where your head snaps forward and then back. And even if no one is hurt, it goes without saying that any crash you avoid will save you a heap of trouble and expense. If you don’t want this safety nanny sharing the brakes with you, you can easily switch her off. And the system deactivates itself if you hit the brakes or take any sort of evasive maneuver, so it’s not second-guessing you constantly.

Dynamic collision avoidance is not new. A number of luxury cars employ some kind of autonomous braking, usually as part of their adaptive cruise control systems. But City Safe provides brake intervention in the urban environment, adding an extra measure of safety without requiring the driver to be using cruise control. City Safe is standard equipment on the XC60 and it will be standard on the S60 starting with its 2010 model year.

Volvo statistics show that 75 percent of all crashes occur at less than 18 mph and that such a system could prevent half of them. As it happens, Consumer Reports has just bought its own Volvo XC60, and we’ll soon have some real-life driving experiences to pass along. (See our first impression from the 2008 NYIAS unveiling in the embedded video above.) As the survivor of a Manhattan mishap or two, I like the City Safety concept. It helps reduce stress in a nerve-wracking drive, just like many of us had on the way home from the show.

—Gordon Hard

See Consumer Reports' coverage of the 2009 New York auto show.