Arnold to automakers: Stop whining!

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

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

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

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

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

Ouch.

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

—Eric Evarts

Read: Gov. Schwarzenegger's official statement

Government proposes 31.6 mpg by 2015

In celebration of Earth Day yesterday, the Department of Transportation released an updated proposal on fuel economy standards that would require cars to get better gas mileage much sooner than previously scheduled.

The new standards would require vehicles to get 25 percent better fuel economy than the current standards by 2015. Cars alone would improve to 35.7 mpg in 2015, and light trucks to 28.6 mpg. Under a new Energy Bill that Congress passed last December, fuel economy requirements must improve by about 40 percent by 2020.

This proposal puts the bulk of that improvement at the beginning of the bill’s timeframe, from 2010 to 2015. This more aggressive timeline will likely drive the implementation of advanced technologies, such as direct fuel injection, sophisticated transmissions, and hybrid drive systems. By 2015, on average, new vehicles would be required to achieve about 31.6 mpg. The new rule would set different fuel-economy mandates for each automaker, based on the sizes and types of cars they build.

The proposalis expected to encourage manufacturers to install these fuel-saving technologies in all types of vehicles, from SUVs to small cars, rather than to simply build more small cars.

For the first time, the program will also allow automakers that exceed the new standards to sell credits earned under the program to other automakers that miss the targets. Otherwise automakers that don’t meet the targets would have to pay fines. In an interesting admission, the government has also assumed a monetary cost for CO2 emissions associated with global warming, as well as an energy security cost for petroleum consumption in setting the standards.

It goes without saying that demanding greater fuel economy improvements sooner will save significantly more fuel in the long run.

The government estimates that the proposal could save 55 billion gallons of fuel and save consumers more than $100 billion at the pump.

Now that’s something we can all celebrate.

—Eric Evarts

Also read:
"Charge! Fuel economy law promotes plug-in hybrids"
"New fuel economy standards won't bring real 35 mpg cars"

Discuss Hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the CR forums.

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

Go yellow? Soon ethanol may not just be from corn

In the United States, ethanol has long been associated with corn. But as ethanol production has expanded rapidly, that perception will have to change.

While food prices rose 4.9 percent in 2007, corn ethanol production rose from 5 billion gallons to 7 billion. This has been a cause for alarm, triggering worries about inflation in the United States and concerns about the ethics of using food crops for fuel. Also, new ethanol mandates under the 2007 Energy Act require more ethanol than can be produced from corn in the United States. So while ethanol in the United States will come almost entirely from corn in the near-term, long-term ethanol will have to be made from a variety of fibrous feedstocks.

Cellulose, essentially any kind of plant fiber, is available all over the country. By comparison, corn cultivation and current ethanol production is primarily in agricultural regions in the Midwest. Consequently, ethanol plants could be located all across America and near coastal cities, alleviating the problem of transporting ethanol from the Midwest. (Ethanol is corrosive and absorbs water, making it difficult to transport in pipelines. And barge and rail capacity to transport ethanol is expensive and constrained. Ethanol is already the number one hazardous material shipped by rail in the United States.)

Cellulose can be harvested from a variety of sources. The main ones being developed are:

• Corn stover, the cobs, stalks, and husks left over from harvesting corn
• Wood pulp, either from existing pulp mills or through harvesting eastern hardwood forests
• Prairie switchgrass
• Leftover construction materials
• Municipal waste.

While some studies have shown that making ethanol from corn consumes more petroleum than it saves (though a majority of studies now show a positive energy balance), cellulosic ethanol is much more efficient. Taking cellulose from plants that grow natively, such as switchgrass and poplar trees, doesn't require fertilizer--sparing the use of petroleum to transport and spread. Using waste materials such as corn stover, wood pulp, or trash can be even more efficient, and have the positive effect of putting waste materials to work.

Depending on the raw materials, cellulosic ethanol could be more expensive than corn ethanol, though it could eventually become cheaper.

Researchers are developing two main processes for refining ethanol from fiber. Both use specially bred enzymes to break down the fibrous material into sugar for refining into ethanol. These enzymes, however, add about $1 a gallon to the cost of refining ethanol from fiber, relative to corn.

The traditional conversion process is to pre-treat the raw fibrous material to soften it, then break it down with enzymes into sugar. Biotech companies such as Rochester, New York-based Genencor and Danish company Novozymes are developing such processes for various woody feedstocks. Novozymes says it will have a commercial plant producing cellulosic ethanol in three years. One company, SunEthanol, of Hadley, Massachusetts, says it can shortcut such processes by using enzymes that make ethanol directly, rather than sugar.

Another process is being developed by a Warrenville, Illinois, company, Coskata, which claims it can use feedstocks such as municipal and construction waste. In its process the waste is heated to turn it into gas (specifically syngas, which is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide), then special enzymes convert the gas into ethanol. (Read: GM invests in cellulosic ethanol )

Now these companies are beginning to look beyond ethanol as a motor fuel to using it as a supply to make fabric and plastics, and other industrial uses.

So far, much of this cellulosic technology is either unproven or too expensive. But like many biotechnology processes, prices are coming down. New machinery would have to be developed to harvest trees and other feedstocks for this purpose. But the supply of fuel could be almost endless, as it is renewable within our national borders.

In the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th, almost all energy came from renewable, biological sources. And Henry Ford built the Model T to run on ethanol. Now it looks certain that more cars will return to renewable fuel sources in the future.

—Eric Evarts

Also read:
Ethanol - the challenges with too much of a good thing
The growing - and surprisingly large - ethanol movement

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

The growing - and surprisingly large - ethanol movement

The search for alternative fuels is moving fast and furiously this week at the National Ethanol Conference in Orlando. Or, in the words of Energy Department Undersecretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner: "Acting with a sense of urgency to develop alternatives to traditional energy supplies is no longer optional." Risks to traditional petroleum supplies have never been higher and are still growing, he says.

That seems to be the conclusion of a surprisingly large contingent of ethanol investors, producers, corn farmers, and advocates gathered here at the conference. Estimates range from 2,000 to 2,700 of them are in attendance.

No surprise, much of the reason for all the interest is financial: Last year's Energy Act included a provision requiring the production of 30 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended with gasoline by 2020.

The ethanol industry is putting its collective efforts into marketing a blend of ethanol called E85, so-named because it is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. A promising supplement to gasoline, there are many sides to E85. For instance, when we tested a flex-fuel Chevrolet Tahoe running on E85 in 2006, we found its fuel economy dropped 27 percent overall, compared with running on gasoline. Likewise, there is debate over the net energy benefits of creating fuel from food crops, with some analysts questioning the energy return when factoring the petroleum used in farm machines and for transporting.

Some stations sell E85 for less than gasoline, while others charge more, hitting consumers with a double-whammy: more fuel cost per gallon and less efficiency. Availability and pricing may change as competition heats up in the ethanol market. Today, only a small fraction of gas stations carry E85, but the number has been growing.

Two recent announcements may push that trend along. The first came last October, when Underwriters Laboratories adopted a safety standard for E85 fuel pumps. Since ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, some station owners were concerned that ordinary gas pumps could fail when pumping gasoline. The organization says it is now testing the first commercial E85 fuel pumps and expects them to be available later this year.

Then in December, Congress passed amendments to a law called the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, forbidding oil companies from restricting the sale of E85 at their franchised gas stations. Some franchise contracts had effectively forbidden the sale, or forced E85 pumps to be located away from other pumps. With those two obstacles eliminated, more gas station owners may consider E85. However, building infrastructure to transport enough ethanol to fuel cars nationwide remains a challenge.

In addition to E85, ethanol is sold in a 10-percent blend with gasoline known as E10 at most gas pumps around the country. Karsner also revealed that the Energy Department is studying setting additional standards for intermediate blends of E15 and E20 to absorb increasing ethanol supplies and decrease gasoline demand.

The jury is out on whether ethanol saves money or not. Undersecretary Karsner says without mixtures of ethanol in gasoline today, gas prices might be even higher. But like any emerging environmental technology, the costs are likely to come down as supplies grow.

So far, according to Dow Jones and USA Today pollster Bruce Scherr, the problem most Americans have with ethanol is they don't know about it. But they support the idea of a domestically produced fuel that can substitute for oil. Today, the United States produces more ethanol than it imports oil from Iraq. (To see where we import oil from, read "The drive for energy independence.")

To learn more about ethanol and alternative fuels, visit our green cars and fuel economy hub. In the meantime, tell us how you feel about ethanol and what would make you switch to using it instead of gasoline in the comments below.

Watch for a future installment on ethanol production and its connection to rising food prices.

—Eric Evarts

Charge! Fuel economy law promotes plug-in hybrids

One interesting and little noticed provision of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a section promoting the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. This legislation nugget has not have caught wide media attention. But to me, seeing Congress actively embrace technology that once seemed like science fiction shows how far we have come in the past decade. Let me explain:

Plug-in hybrids, like the Chevrolet Volt concept and some Toyota Prius aftermarket conversions, work just like regular full hybrids—operating on gas, electric power, or both. But plug-ins have much larger batteries, and instead of recharging them only with the gas engine in the vehicle, they may also be charged from a home or office electrical outlet.

The idea is that if the cars had enough battery power to go 40 miles on a charge, without starting the engine, 78 percent of Americans could drive all week without using any gasoline at all. Most Americans drive less than 27 miles a day, and the cars could go that far on electricity alone by charging up every night.

True, the electrical power would have to come from some place, and its production—would result in some pollution on a national basis. But electric power is much cheaper than gasoline for the equivalent energy, and it can be generated through myriad means within the United States, reducing dependence on international energy sources. Plus, the drivetrains in electric cars are up to 90-percent efficient--more than three times as much as gasoline cars—so overall energy demand would be greatly reduced.

With the nation's electrical grid already strained to capacity on many hot summer days, however, it is important that electric cars and plug-in hybrids be charged mainly at night when there is plenty of excess capacity. In the long run, that would require that the electrical grid be computerized to "read" how much electricity is stored in each car's batteries, the time of day, and the overall load on the electrical grid. At night, if a car's batteries were low, the system would charge them as soon as the car is plugged in. If the car were plugged in the day time when there is no excess electrical capacity to charge the car (for example, at work), a plug-in hybrid would just have to drive home on gas power. If the car was plugged in the daytime and still had some charge in the batteries, the batteries might be drained to transfer needed power to the grid, and the owner would be reimbursed at higher peak rates for the electricity.

Clearly a lot of details need to be worked out for this potential electrified future, but the new Energy Act takes a step in that direction by funding such studies and providing incentives for power companies to upgrade their networks to carry this computerized data.

Incidentally, as part of the effort to promote plug-in hybrids, the Act creates a university competition for plug-in hybrid cars, named after one of the idea's most vociferous advocates, Dr. Andrew Frank, of the University of California at Davis. Dr. Frank first built a plug-in hybrid car for a 1996 government competition, and he allowed this reporter to ride along as his students attempted to prove the concept on a drive from Detroit to Washington, D.C. I remained skeptical at the time that such an idea would ever make sense.

But years of additional research, a big rise in oil prices, and growing interest among mainstream automakers suggest that, in concept anyway, plug-in hybrids could make a real dent in the demand for gasoline. And with international tensions being what they are and gasoline costing me more than ever get to work, this low-key provision in the Energy Act couldn't come at a better time.

—Eric Evarts

Also read: "New fuel economy standards won't bring real 35 mpg cars."

Discuss Hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the CR forums.

Congress paves the way for 35-mpg cars

The push to make America's cars more fuel efficient got a big boost on Friday when congressional leaders in the House of Representatives agreed on a proposal to raise fuel economy standards in the United States to 35 mpg by 2020. The bill is expected to be voted on next week in the House and the U.S. Senate.

Currently the standards require passenger cars other than SUVs, minivans, and pickups to average 27 mpg across an automaker's fleet, while those light-trucks must average 22.2 mpg across all examples sold. As encouragement to conform, manufacturers whose vehicles exceed the standard must pay $5.50 per vehicle they produce for every tenth of a mile per gallon they exceed the average limit.

The new proposal would continue to allow SUVs, minivans, and pickups to get lower gas mileage than passenger cars, and it would apply money from fines to help develop technology for more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. It would also continue to promote the use of E85 ethanol by giving automakers credit toward fuel economy goals for building vehicles capable of running on E85.

"For the first time in decades, Congress is taking long overdue action to increase the fuel efficiency of American cars and SUVs," says Representative Edward Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Even if they do, that may not be the end of increasing fuel economy standards. Congressional leaders opted not to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency or state governments from passing new carbon-dioxide emissions restrictions as part of the package. Such freedom allows California and others to push for higher automobile emissions standards, which could effectively require cars to get even greater fuel economy than 35 mpg.

This bill promises to save consumers real money at the pump in the years ahead. Should the bill be passed, as expected, we will post a follow-up report.

—Eric Evarts

New life for recycled motor oil, batteries, and tires

Ever wondered what happens to all those gallons of used motor oil, spent car batteries, and worn out tires? Well, if they're properly disposed of (i.e. not tossed in the trash), chances are, at least some are being reused or recycled into new products.   

Take motor oil, for example. Recycling is now the preferred way to manage used oil, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And that's not hard to believe when you consider that there are several uses for old oil. Used oil can be re-refined into new engine lubricants and processed into fuel oils used by furnaces and power plants. Even used oil filters, which contain scrap metal, can be reused by steel manufacturers.

Car batteries are another recyclable product. In fact, about 90 percent of all lead-acid batteries are recycled, according to the EPA. And those materials are then recycled right back into new batteries. It's estimated that a typical new battery contains between 60 and 80 percent recycled lead and plastic from former batteries. And believe it or not, even the acid can be treated to create water that can then be discharged into the public water system, if it meets safety standards under federal and state laws.

Old tires are another product that can be put to new uses. Just 15 years ago, only about 11 percent of old tires were utilized. However in 2005, nearly 87 percent of the 299 million used tires were reused or recycled, according to the Rubber Manufacturers Association. While about half were used for industrial purposes like fueling cement kilns and pulp and paper mills, the next two top uses were for construction and the rubber products industry, which includes athletic surfacing.

To learn more about why these products should be recycled and discover recycling options near you, visit our free environmental Web site, GreenerChoices.org.

Read our latest tire and car battery Ratings.

--Kristi Wiedemann

Why are gas prices going down?

Gas prices are continuing to decline, as they have been for much of the summer. Not that we're complaining, it's just that forecasts warned about a possible surge in prices in August and we have been bracing ourselves for the hit.

So, why are they continuing to go down?
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) had reported that gas prices may go up in August if weather disrupts refinery operations, but it hasn't happened yet. Looking at past trends, prices don't consistently increase in August. Since the beginning of the decade, gas prices rose in 2001, 2003, and 2005. They were steady in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and declined in 2006 and so far this year, as well.

Then what would cause a surge?
According to the EIA, weather is one influence. Late summer starts the hurricane season, which runs the risk of impacting refinery operations through power outages.

As people hit the road to try to sneak in their last vacation before school starts, the potential rise in consumer demand can elevate prices.

Another factor is how the prices were earlier in the summer. High prices at the beginning of the season can encourage extra supply to be produced and imported. If the supply becomes abundant, prices move down so long as the demand doesn't continue to meet it. This occurred last year and is happening again this year.

All this means good news for those vacationers trying to enjoy the last bit of summer. Get out now and enjoy a little relief in your wallet before the surge in demand drives prices back up again. And the roller-coaster ride continues...

--Liza Barth

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."

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

Why are gas prices so high?

People tend to blame to their choice of villain when complaining about the cost of gasoline these days, but there is more than one reason for achingly high prices.

For example, gasoline inventory is lower than normal.  According to the EPA, during 12 consecutive weeks in February, March, and April, total U.S. gasoline inventories dropped by 15 percent.  This is the sharpest decline over  this ascribed time in recorded history. Also, lower import levels, refinery outages due to maintenance, and unplanned refinery incidents have contributed to a slowdown in supply growth. And yet, gas demand continues to rise despite prices well over $3.00 a gallon in many regions.

There are also global factors, such as increased demand for fuel by developing countries--including India and China--as well as tensions in the Persian Gulf, from where a large quantity of oil is sourced.

So, what does this mean for drivers this summer travel season? Prices are expected to remain high throughout the summer, because inventories are likely to remain low. As gasoline imports increase, domestic refineries come back into production, and as supplies improve, we could see prices come back down... possibly after the summer travel season.  In the meantime, see our tips for saving fuel and our guide to fuel economy for information on fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels. Also, check out the U.S. weekly gas prices in your region.

--Liza Barth

Greener taxis coming to New York City

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg today announced a plan to make the city's fleet of taxis cleaner, more fuel-efficient, and maybe even inspire new standards for cabs nationwide. This move goes even further than our previous blog post "Rally cry for a taxi revolution," which explored replacing the current Crown Victoria fleet with thriftier, more environmentally friendly cars, such as the Kia Rondo.

After October 2008, the mayor wants all new yellow cabs coming into the New York's fleet to be capable of at least 25 mpg (based on the new city-cycle Environmental Protection Agency ratings), using gasoline-electric hybrid powertrains. A year later, the mayor's plan calls for new cabs to get 30 mpg, based again on EPA city ratings. The move likely signals the beginning of the end for the V8-powered Ford Crown Victoria sedans that make up more than 90 percent of New York's fleet of 13,000 medallion cabs. In our last test of a Mercury Grand Marquis (a twin to the Crown Victoria), we measured only 10 mpg for city driving.

In addition to eliminating Crown Vics, this measure may effectively phase Toyota Siennas and other minivans out from service, as there are no current minivans available that meet the new mileage requirements. 

There are currently 375 hybrid taxis on the streets of New York. The most popular are Ford Escape compact SUVs, approximately 250 of which are now in service. Under Bloomberg's plan, the number of hybrids in the fleet is expected to grow to 1,000 by October 2008. Each following year, more than 20 percent of the fleet will make the transition to more-efficient models. By 2012, all of the city's medallion cabs are expected to be hybrids. While the measure doesn't rule out other powertrains, there simply aren't currently suitable gasoline models rated for 30 mpg in city driving, though future technology may provide other options down the road.

This will not mean that drivers and owners will be forced to prematurely retire their current taxis, rather, that as aging cabs are due for scheduled replacement, they must be replaced with models meeting the new requirements. Approximately 3,000-3,500 cabs are replaced every year as they reach their maximum allowable age - three years for fleet-owned taxis, five years for owner-driver cabs, and six-to-seven years for hybrids. While hybrids do cost more initially, the city says each one put into service can save $10,000 per year in fuel costs. And when fully implemented, the new standards are expected to reduce carbon emissions by more than 215,000 tons.

A TLC (Taxi and Limousine Commission) spokesperson said other cities are likely to follow New York's lead, and that we should expect to see taxi fleets nationwide start turning gradually greener.

--Jim Travers

The accompanying charts project the potential fuel and emissions savings. As indicated, AWD models were used for the fuel consumption calculations based on availability of CR fuel economy test data, though the fleet will likely use FWD configurations.

Senate proposes 35 mpg on all vehicles

The U.S. Senate has proposed legislation that would require automakers to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon on all cars and light trucks nationwide by the year 2020. The bill also requires an improvement in fuel economy by 4 percent each year after for the next 10 years.

The proposal by Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) would create, for the first time, fuel economy standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. It would also give the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) flexibility to configure the CAFE program to achieve high fuel standards while "ensuring the stability of the automotive industry." The domestic auto industry has been anything but stable recently amid elevated fuel prices, making this political wiggle room an expected place for negotiations.

This bill is aimed at reducing the impact of global warming and U.S. oil dependencies on foreign countries. The committee still supports researching alternative fuels, but Inouye says it is possible to enhance current fuel technologies and not limit consumer choice in automobiles.

"This is a good step in the right direction," says Consumer Reports' Auto Test Senior Director David Champion. "However, the increased cost of gas will likely move the market for more fuel-efficient vehicles quicker than this legislation."

The "Big 3" car manufacturers may be the hardest hit by this proposed bill, because most of their top sellers are SUVs and pickups, whereas import brands tend to build more cars. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers trade group--representing DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Toyota, and others--has been outspoken in their criticism of this move, with a spokesperson Gloria Bergquist quoted at detnews.com as calling the goals "unattainable."

Currently, there are different mpg standards for cars and trucks. The standard car mpg is 27.5 and for light trucks it's at 22.2 mpg. This week, the average national gas price is $3.05, according to the Energy Information Administration.

For more information on fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels, see our fuel economy guide.  And for the latest national, and regional, gasoline price averages, monitor the Gas Prices category in the Cars blog.

--Liza Barth   

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

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.

Measuring fuel economy progress

In examining our data for the story, "Which companies make the best cars?" in the April 2007 issue, we found that a few problems stood out that explain why many cars from U.S. automakers don't score as well in our Ratings as those from some foreign companies: fuel economy, handling, braking, standard safety equipment, and crash test scores. Through the analysis, we dug deep into fuel economy to truly understand its impact across models and brands. While this research influenced the published text, there was more insight to be drawn from the number crunching than space allowed.

In looking at fuel economy, we wanted to be fair to all automakers and not penalize some manufacturers for building more large trucks than others. So, we didn't count pickups in our assessment. We also didn't include sports cars or minivans because not all automakers build them. Instead, we compared only sedans and SUVs made by major manufacturers. And we separated small sedans and SUVs into separate categories to compare them only with each other.

For our comparison, we judged fuel economy versus acceleration, or how much performance automakers achieved per gallon of fuel burned. We chose this basis of comparison for two reasons. First, it rewards automakers that improve fuel economy without sacrificing performance. And second, it doesn't favor one fuel-saving technology over another.

In the end, we found that BMW, Honda, Mazda, and Toyota offered the most performance per gallon in their sedans and SUVs, while Chrysler, Ford, GM, Hyundai, and Subaru offered the least. This is based on our measured overall mpg and 0-60 mph times.

The other thing that stood out in reviewing manufacturers' performance in fuel economy is how unimpressive mileage ratings are overall. In Consumer Reports testing, current midsized SUVs, such as the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Ford Explorer, and Toyota Highlander, average just 16 mpg overall. Family sedans, like the Honda Accord and Pontiac G6, do a little better, averaging 22 mpg.

Taking a simple view without factoring sales volume and fleet mix, we see that on average the small sedans we've tested (excluding hybrids) miss the Federal goal of 27.5 mpg that all automakers' cars are supposed to meet under the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. They only get about 26 mpg overall in our real-world testing. Other than hybrids and diesels, the only vehicles that surpass the requirement, are even smaller cars like those tested in our December group, including the Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent and Toyota Yaris. And even they return just a little more than the law requires. The 10 inexpensive, so-called misers we recently tested could muster an average of only 30.6 mpg overall. Without paying a premium for a hybrid or choosing a diesel, unfortunately that's about the best consumers can do 35 years after the government began mandating higher fuel economy under CAFE.

We've reported before on how CAFE ratings don't reflect real-world mileage and how the government will address that later this year. But one might have hoped that, "real" numbers or not, higher fuel economy targets would have brought significant real-world improvements. But our data shows that while fuel-saving technology has advanced, automakers have largely traded off actual fuel economy gains for other benefits.

Today's best fuel-sippers are much bigger, safer, quicker, cleaner, more reliable, better equipped, and more comfortable than economy cars of the early 1970s. Back then, the best barebones car Consumer Reports tested crossed the 30-mpg threshold. While consumers are certainly getting a better overall package, the fuel-economy figures are not leaps and bounds better in the 21st century. That there are not small cars now with modern safety equipment that get even better mileage seems like an unfortunate, missed opportunity as America's oil addiction deepens.

--Eric Evarts

New versus old EPA mpg

While working on a story for our upcoming New Car Buying Guide 2007 (available on newsstands this June), I used the new comparison tool on the EPA's Web site. It lets visitors choose their current vehicle (year/make/model) and in return, it provides comparison of the old and new mileage estimates based on EPA testing.

I thought it would be interesting to compare CR's data for a few models with the mileage the EPA says they cars should have gotten--and will get--with the new calculations. Because hybrid vehicles had some of the biggest discrepancies between our testing and the EPA testing, particularly in the city cycle, I used the same vehicles we compared in our report on the "The dollars & sense of hybrid cars."

In general, the revised EPA calculations for combined mileage are now more in-line with the CR overall mileage for conventional vehicles, and sometimes very close with the hybrids. However, the EPA city numbers, particularly for hybrid vehicles, are still much higher than the CR real-world fuel economy figures derived from our fuel economy tests. As you look through the examples in this chart, the variances are significant enough to warrant comparing against other data, such as the overall, city, and highway mpg in our model overview pages (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers).

Consumers who drive a mix of city and highway travel, in particular, should compare the revised EPA figures with the Consumer Reports real-world data when deciding on a new or used vehicle. Buyers who do a heavy amount of driving in stop and go, low-speed city traffic should be aware that the numbers on the window sticker and EPA Web site may be higher than they are likely to see, and budget their fuel spending accordingly.

Full mileage comparison example:

2007 Toyota Camry LE (4-cyl, automatic)
EPA original combined mpg: 27
EPA original city mpg: 24
EPA original highway mpg: 33

EPA new combined mpg: 24
EPA new city mpg: 21
EPA new highway mpg: 30

Consumer Reports overall mpg: 24
Consumer Reports city mpg: 16
Consumer Reports highway mpg: 36

--Jon Linkov

Better new-car fuel economy estimates

Beginning with 2008 models, new cars and trucks will have a revised fuel economy window sticker that the Environmental Protection Agency says will provide more realistic fuel use estimates. Consumers Union and other groups have long complained that the estimated miles per gallon for city and highway driving are too high. The new stickers also will include a range of estimates that car owners should expect to achieve depending on how they drive and other conditions. Because the method used to calculate the estimates differs, the EPA advises car buyers not to compare the estimates on the new stickers with those on 2007 or earlier models. Although most 2008 models will be released next fall, some could show up in dealerships as early as this winter.

For more information on the EPA and fuel economy, read "New EPA fuel-economy tests will better reflect real-world driving."

-- Anthony Giorgianni

EPA still optimistic about fuel mileage

The Environmental Protection Agency just released its fuel mileage test results for 2007 models, and once again, their numbers are more optimistic than ours-- wildly more so in the case of some city ratings. The EPA rates their top pick, the Toyota Prius at 51-mpg highway, 60 city. While we got a still respectable 50-mpg highway, 35 city for the Prius, that's a big difference. Expect similar variances with other models. (See accompanying chart.) 

Why? One reason is the EPA tests were developed in the 1970s, and everything from the cars themselves to driving conditions have changed a lot since then. Another is that the EPA allows manufacturers to provide hand-built models for testing, and it performs tests in a controlled laboratory environment. We buy our cars anonymously from dealers, and test them on real roads like you drive. Which do you think will produce results more like what you're likely to get? When making a purchase decision, it is important to consider the real-world fuel economy, not the numbers on new car window stickers. 

Learn more about how we test and how the EPA does.

Government watch: Kids and cars

Consumers Union Senior Product Safety Counsel Sally Greenberg reports on the automotive developments in Washington, D.C.:

Consumers Union (CU) recently joined safety advocates, politicians, and families who had lost children to preventable accidents in urging Congress to pass a law to help protect children from injury in and around cars.
This important initiative is gaining traction, but more work is needed. The bill in the Senate has 22 co-sponsors. In the House, the bill has 20 co-sponsors. To see this bill passed, advocates are pressing hard for more co-sponsors and a Senate hearing. Through support from concerned consumers like yourself, urging your government representatives to sponsor bill S. 1948, we can see an important proposal turned into law and thereby make the world safer for the next generation.

"The Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act" is named for a Long Island toddler who was killed when he ran behind the family SUV as his father, Greg Gulbransen, was backing up in the driveway. Gulbransen, a pediatrician, has since become an activist in the fight to get accident-prevention technologies installed in all cars.

S 1948 has several requirements:
1) A rearward visibility standard in all vehicles so drivers can see what is behind them as they back up. With some vehicles, the rear blind zone size is quite large. For example, Consumer Reports tests have found that a 5' 1" driver backing up in the new Jeep Commander (without a rearview camera) would face a 69-foot blind zone. That's longer than many driveways! Two children a week, Kids and Cars estimates, are killed in backover incidents.

2) An auto-reverse mechanism on power windows to prevent strangling children and injuring arms or fingers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated in a 1997 study that 499 people visit emergency rooms each year for treatment of injuries related to power windows. For years safety advocates have been trying to get the government to do something about the dangers posed by power windows. A high 80 percent of European vehicles have auto-reverse power windows, but in the United States, the figure hovers at around 10 percent. An auto-reverse mechanism in all windows will prevent such injuries.

3) Brake-shift interlock in all key positions so children must step on the brake in order to get the car into gear. Sadly, that technology is absent from too many cars with deadly results.

Again, you can help make cars safer for all by encouraging your national representatives and senators to support this bill.

--Sally Greenberg

Government watch: Stars on cars

Consumers Union Senior Product Safety Counsel Sally Greenberg reports on the automotive developments in Washington, D.C.:

Consumers Union was asked to join bill-sponsor Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) on September 7th, as he and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator Nicole Mason announced that government crash ratings will be available at the showroom for the first time. The "Stars on Cars" rule requires that NHTSA's five-star safety ratings be displayed on car window stickers beginning with the 2008 model year if the vehicle has been tested.

The new vehicle price stickers will contain NHTSA safety ratings in three areas: front and side crash tests and rollover tests. All three use a five-star rating, with five stars being the safest.

CU likes to see auto safety consumer information made widely available to consumers wherever they might be looking for it: on the Internet, from the manufacturer, and at the showroom. Thanks to this new rule, consumers who might be inclined to make quick or impulsive decisions at a dealership will have the chance to compare safety ratings of one car against another. In some cases, they might think twice about what they choose based on this safety information.

Having acknowledged the value of having crash ratings readily available, CU has been critical of NHTSA's crash program because most cars are getting perfect or near-perfect scores. If every college-bound teenager were getting near-perfect scores on the SATs, you can bet the authors of the test would be concerned. CU has called on NHTSA to make the crash testing program far more stringent to give consumers better information on which cars are the safest and further encourage manufacturers to improve crash protection.

For a thorough look at vehicle crash-worthiness, it is recommended that shoppers also review results from the more stringent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tests. Complete safety-test results from both sources can be found in the car model overview pages at ConsumerReports.org, as well as safety-related ratings and data on how vehicles performed in our dynamic tests.

--Sally Greenberg

Ethanol: Hope or hype?

There's been a lot of buzz about ethanol--a motor fuel that is made domestically from corn. But what's the truth? Could it be the cure-all for America's dependence on foreign oil? Or is it just a federal handout to farmers for a fuel that will never solve America's energy problems?

After an extensive investigation on ethanol, Consumer Reports found that the truth is, predictably, between the two extremes.

With potential international action looming against Iran and increased energy demands by China and India, oil prices have been spiking to record levels, and scientists have stepped up the search for alternative fuels. Even with these efforts, it may take many years to build out any new fuel infrastructure. While research into hydrogen fuel continues, ethanol will likely make a bigger impact in the near term. Ethanol can be produced in larger amounts than biodiesel, and it requires fewer technological breakthroughs and less infrastructure development than batteries or fuel cells.

The U.S. government is subsidizing ethanol sales today with a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit, and a federal mandate to blend 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Critics say that amounts to a gift to farmers for an inefficient fuel.

The Government Accountability Office estimated ethanol tax incentives in 2000. When Consumer Reports adjusted the GAO data for inflation to 2005 dollar values, these estimates totaled $13.5 billion from 1980-2000. In the same study, the GAO estimated oil industry subsidies amounted to an adjusted $68 billion in the same time period. And that's just in cumulative tax incentives. While some of those incentives are for exploration of other alternative fuels such as oil from tar sands, shale, and coal, the tax incentives amount to $55.5 billion even not counting the alternative fuel dollars.

Debate has raged for decades over whether ethanol can, in fact, save any oil or whether it takes so much fertilizer, tractor fuel, and coal-produced electricity to make it, plus transport it by truck, that it would be more efficient to just burn gasoline. But most scientists now agree that on balance, ethanol provides a 23 to 40 percent energy benefit.

Ethanol emits fewer smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but one major misconception is that it will provide better fuel economy. In fact, cars running on E85 ethanol (a mix of 85 percent ethanol with 15 percent gasoline) get worse fuel economy and go fewer miles per gallon than they do on gasoline. Yet, automakers have an artificial incentive from the government to produce flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) since they get credit in CAFE estimates, boosting their average.

When we tested a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle on the two fuels, we found that the mileage dropped 27 percent -fuel consumption went from 14 to 10 mpg overall.

That means that to go an equal number of miles, you'd pay the equivalent of $3.89 a gallon for E85, versus a national average price of $2.84 for gasoline the last week of August, 2006. That's a difference few drivers will want to take to the bank. It also means that instead of driving almost 450 miles on a tank of gas, the Tahoe could go only about 300 miles on a tank of E85. While ethanol is no energy panacea, it is worth developing as one of the alternatives that may be part of a suite of energy sources that will ease the pressure on gasoline supplies in the coming decades.

--Eric Evarts

For more on ethanol, read "The ethanol myth: Consumer Reports' E85 tests show that you'll get cleaner emissions but poorer fuel economy ... if you can find it."

Discuss ethanol and flex-fuel vehicles in the Consumer Reports forums.

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

Gov't savings a drop in the oil barrel

In an unusual flurry of activity--no doubt aimed at placating voters about high gasoline prices in an election year--the federal government has been scrambling to address this latest spike at the pump and larger energy issues. This situation, of course, is more complicated than sound bites and 60-second news segments reveal, and so far the measures moving through Congress (including the infamous $100 rebates) seem to be mere band-aids that are intended to dissipate public outrage without making the auto and oil industries too uncomfortable.

One example of this are the new light-truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations that were recently proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). They will require manufacturers to attain higher average fuel-economy levels for light trucks—SUVs, pickups, and minivans—beginning in 2008. Rather than a common figure all automakers would need to reach, however, the new standards will be based on the configuration of each automaker’s vehicle lineup. This approach will likely be applied to cars, as well.

As part of the regulations, NHTSA has also finally plugged the gaping hole in the current CAFE regulations that allowed the heaviest, most gas-guzzling passenger vehicles escape any fuel-economy standards at all.

While we support measures that lead to improved fuel economy there are significant reasons why we feel the new requirements don’t go far enough:

1)    The government likes to cite the fact that the new rules will save 10.7 billion gallons of gasoline. Sounds impressive, right? But according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a research and advocacy group that figure amounts to less than two weeks of U.S. gasoline consumption each year over the next two decades.

From ucsusa.org:
"Fighting America's oil addiction with these standards is like fighting lung cancer by smoking 49 cigarettes a day instead of 50," said Don MacKenzie, vehicles engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Automakers have technology on their shelves right now that could cost-effectively improve the efficiency of light trucks to 26 or 27 mpg, at least double the increase that NHTSA announced today."

2) Even the new higher CAFE numbers aren’t what they seem. But to understand why, we need to take a slight detour.

It’s no secret that the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel-economy figures, posted on the window stickers of all new vehicles, are typically higher than real-world gas mileage. The original formula for calculating them was established in 1975. To address a rising clamor about their inaccuracy, however, in 1984 the EPA began cutting 10 percent off of its city mpg figures and 22 percent off of its highway mpg. But it didn’t change its original formula for calculating the numbers. This adjustment helped, but the figures are still higher than real-world gas mileage. In a recent Consumer Reports study that compared the real-world fuel-economy results of 303 cars and trucks we tested with their EPA estimates, we found that 90 percent of the vehicles got lower gas mileage, with an average shortfall of nine percent. (The full report on “Why you're not getting the mpg you expect” is available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers.) 

Okay, back to CAFE.