Mystery car deals: Too good to be true?

In this tight economic market, businesses are doing just about anything to drum up sales including slashing prices, providing incentives, coupons, and free shipping. Some companies are getting even more creative and maybe a bit mysterious.

A colleague’s wife recently received a letter in the mail with no return address and inside was a fake newspaper ad for a three-day sale at a Nissan dealership. Attached to the ad was a yellow Post-It note that said "Check this out!" signed "J." The sale was pretty intriguing in that they were advertising $29 down and monthly payments as low as $129 a month for a used car from a variety of manufacturers. It was dubbed the "National Automotive ‘Insider’ Sales Event." On the back of the full-page ad was a list of mutual funds, resembling the financial pages from a major newspaper. We never found out where the ad came from and if it had any merit, but the tactic raised a red flag.

Selling it any way possible
This type of marketing is not new. In the mid-90’s, Consumer Reports magazine published an item in its Selling It section, which poked fun at deceitful and obtuse advertising, titled "Mystery mail." The piece discussed an example of a bogus article promoting an anti-aging formula. After looking into the ad with the Better Business Bureau, we found the parent company had a history of failing to deliver products and refunds. Plus, the dietary supplement they were selling was available over-the-counter for one-tenth of the price.

These deceptive advertising techniques seem to especially pop-up in a down market when people are looking for deals and businesses are desperate to move inventory. The auto industry is particularly prone to creative, even misleading tactics, with dealers desperate for business from a reluctant, cash-strapped consumer base.

It’s important to be especially wary of scams and false claims, especially with the upcoming CARS "cash for clunkers" program that will introduce new complexities into the buying process for eligible customers. If you have questions about an advertising claim, it’s best to check with the Better Business Bureau before you shell out any cash. And certainly hesitate to pursue anonymous solicitations. Remember a long-held piece of Consumer Reports advice: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Have you received any mysterious advertising in the mail or saw an offer that was too good to be true? Share your stories in the comments below.

--Liza Barth

Letting the air out from new California tire inflation rules

We have long advocated checking your tire pressures monthly both as a safety measure and to maximize your fuel economy and tire life. Californians may have even more reason to get in the habit, however due to a new tire inflation rule. And if they don’t, their auto service provider will be required to do it for them.

In its latest effort to combat global warming, a new rule in the state of California requires all businesses that —provide automotive service -- except car washes, body shops, auto parts stores, and glass repair companies -- to check and correct the tire pressures. Shops will set their own prices for this service, though drivers can decline to have it done. The rule will take effect in July 2010.

The state cites federal studies that show every three psi that tires are under inflated reduces fuel economy by 1 percent. In our own tire tests, we found that the fuel mileage drop was negligible with tires 10 psi under their recommended inflation in highway driving. But keep in mind that under inflated tires compromise handling and braking, and wear faster.

Statewide, California says that the measure will annually:

• Eliminate 700,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Reduce the state's fuel consumption by 75 million gallons.
• Extend the average tire's useful life by 4,700 miles.

According to the Sacramento Bee newspaper, that will only account for 0.5 percent of the state’s greenhouse-gas saving goal by 2020.

Read "Have you checked your tire pressure lately?" For more information on tires, including Ratings, from Consumer Reports visit our tire section.

—Eric Evarts

Best new car values: It’s more than dollars and cents

In last year’s April issue we introduced our owner-cost estimates, which tell you approximately how much a car will cost you to own during the first five years. The data, which took several years to develop, is based on: depreciation, fuel cost, insurance, interest on financing, maintenance and repairs, and sales tax.

This allows us to predict which models are the least expensive to own (subscribers to ConsumerReports.org can see owner-cost estimates based on three, five, and eight years of ownership). 

This is good information, but it is just a piece of the overall puzzle. After all, some of the cars that are the least expensive to own aren’t ones that we would recommend you buy. For instance, the five least expensive small cars in last year’s issue were the Toyota Yaris (manual), Chevrolet Aveo (manual), Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris (auto), and Chevrolet Aveo (auto). Of those, only the Honda Fit meets our requirements for being recommended. The Aveo, for instance, is one of the lowest rated cars in its class.

So, in this year’s Consumer Reports annual auto issue, we took the next logical step. We wanted to show which models are the best values; in other words, which give you the most bang for your buck. And for that, owner costs are only part of the picture. In fact, we found that some of the models that are least expensive to own are not good values.

To determine the best values, we looked at three factors:

• Our five-year owner cost estimates
• The overall road-test scores from our comprehensive test program
• Our predicted-reliability ratings.

Our road-test scores, which are based on more than 50 individual tests and evaluations, reflect whether a car is works well in daily life. And our reliability ratings are based on the problems reported to us on more than 1.4 million vehicles in our latest Annual Auto Survey.

Here’s the formula that we applied to more than 300 vehicles. First, we divided each car’s owner-cost estimate by its overall road-test score to get, what we call, its “bucks per bang” cost; or the cost of each point in its test score. Then, we filtered out any models that don’t have better than an average reliability rating.

Using this formula, the vehicles that rise to the top are good all-around packages that did well in our road tests, have relatively low owner costs, and have very good or excellent reliability records. In other words, they give you the most for your money.

Here are top models in several popular categories:

Best Overall: The Prius Touring came in with the best bucks-per-bang cost thanks to one of the lower owner-cost estimates in the list—$26,250 over five years—and a relatively high road-test score of 80 points out of 100. (The base Prius earned 68 points.) The Prius Touring doesn't have the least expensive sticker price in its class, but its excellent fuel economy of 42 mpg overall and solid resale value help give it a low owner cost that nearly matches the less expensive Honda Civic EX. With a higher overall test score than the Civic, the Prius stands out as the Best Value.

Best Value Small Cars: Honda Civic EX, Honda Fit (base), Hyundai Elantra SE, Toyota Corolla LE, and the Honda Civic Hybrid

Best Value Family Cars: Toyota Prius Touring, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Toyota Prius (base), Hyundai Sonata (4-cyl.), and the Honda Accord (4-cyl.)

Best Value Small SUVs: Toyota RAV4 (4-cyl.), Toyota RAV4 (V6), Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander (4-cyl.), and the Nissan Rogue

Best Value Midsized SUVs: Hyundai Santa Fe, Toyota Highlander, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Nissan Murano, and the Honda Pilot

See the complete list with costs in “Most bang for the buck.”

Not all values are valuable

We have seen Web sites present their own take on value, using different data and criteria. It is clear, that not all values are created equal.

For example, in a recent value-focused press release, Edmunds cites “industry leaders” with the “lowest five-year owner costs” that include several models that frankly are not good cars and do not meet our criteria for being Recommended. For instance, the Chevrolet Aveo. Like Edmunds, we find the Aveo5 to have much better than average owner costs. But it scored just 31 points out of 100 in our exhaustive testing. (See our Aveo sedan video road test.) We found the engine to be rough, the handling clumsy, and the ride jumpy. Further, it returns worse fuel economy than several, more capable cars. And, its predicted reliability is also below average. In total, we don’t think the Aveo5 is a good car, and therefore don’t recommend it as a good value, let alone a Best Value. (Learn how Consumer Reports tests cars.)

Edmunds also cites the Jeep Patriot in their release, a vehicle we likewise consider to have better than average owner costs. And again, cannot Recommend it because of its middling 55 out of 100 point score. The featured Chevrolet HHR also scores a 55, and it too has less than stellar fuel economy for its class and only average reliability. (Read the take from the LA Times.)

There are many ways to rank vehicles, including by owner costs. We believe our comprehensive approach with Best Values, which takes into account the merit of the car, provides an enlightening view of today’s standout models.

You can create your own list filtered and sorted by the factors that matter most to you by using the Consumer Reports New Car Selector. When you look at someone else’s lists, make sure you understand the criteria. And remember, we present our unbiased findings without fear or favor, as Consumer Reports does not accept advertising and works solely for the consumer.

—Jeff Bartlett and Rik Paul

Chrysler strategic plan asks for a leap of faith

Tuesday, Chrysler and General Motors submitted their strategic plans for revitalization to Congress, as required to received federal assistance. In scanning the 177-page document from Chrysler, there were several things that caught my attention.

Right on the cover, it claims “Chrysler is the quintessential American auto company.” Clearly, Chrysler knows its audience and is playing to their sensibilities. However, I can’t seem to shake the long-time product-sharing relationship with Mitsubishi, the recent memory of the German owners from Daimler, or the newfound Italian partner Fiat, who was recently given a 35-percent equity interest in Chrysler.

Or, to pick nits further, Chrysler LLC built (pdf) 36,000 cars in the United States, with 17,000 built in Canada. For trucks, 49,000 were built in the U.S., 16,000 in Canada, and 14,000 in Mexico. Perhaps they meant “quintessential North American auto company.”

The presentation page that stopped me in my tracks, however, was page 131, shown here revealing a sneak peek at the 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Understanding that statements made in this document are forward looking and created to inspire confidence, I just can’t get over the star burst that reads: “Consumer Reports Reliability 40% better than industry average.” Page 133 shows the same graphic, on a picture of the revised Chrysler 300. Maybe we should be flattered.

First off, Consumer Reports and its parent organization Consumers Union maintain a very strict non-commercialization policy forbidding the use of the brands in any marketing materials. It is part of how we work for consumers, without fear or favor. Admittedly, this was a requested submission to Congress, not used as a direct consumer marketing piece, so for now let’s look past that for this blog.

Chrysler may be known for many things, but reliability is not one of them. 

In our 2008 Car Reliability Survey, based on our subscribers' experiences with 1.4 million vehicles, Chrysler is ranked 32nd of 34 brands. Dodge ranks 30th and Jeep 28th.

In our published report on Reliability, when referencing the performance for the domestic automakers, we wrote:
Chrysler trails the pack. Almost two-thirds of its products rate below average for reliability. The redesigned 2008 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans earned low scores, as did the Chrysler Sebring V6 and Dodge Avenger sedans and the Jeep Liberty SUV. The Sebring Convertible has the worst score: 283 percent worse than average. The only above-average models are the Dodge Caliber hatchback and Jeep Patriot SUV.

In reviewing the reliability data presented in our used-car verdicts on the Jeep Grand Cherokee, I found a series of black-colored “blobs” – marks that denote consistent below-average performance for the past decade. The Chrysler 300 has hovered around average for most of its lifespan, with clear ups and downs in reliability.

It would seem to me that boasting an imminent new product would be significantly better than current models is asking for a leap of faith--one Chrysler is measuring by the billions, based on their requests. Added to the challenge is that the Grand Cherokee isn’t a freshening, but a full redesign. First year reliability of redesigns, even by manufacturers with a reputation for quality, may suffer somewhat. So this “40% better than industry average” sounds more than a touch optimistic.

I can only imagine what other discoveries can be made in this novella-scale document…

—Jeff Bartlett

Replacement costs drop for hybrid batteries

A frequently voiced concern about hybrids centers around the high cost of replacement batteries, which have ranged up to about $3,000. Now some relief may be on the way. Toyota announced last month that it has reduced the price of replacement batteries for the current (2002-2009) Prius by $686, to $2,299. Batteries for the first-generation Prius dropped $397 to $2,588.

That still seems like a lot of money. But overall, we have found hybrids to be very reliable in our subscriber surveys and relatively inexpensive to own. Automakers are required to warranty batteries for 8 years and 80,000 miles nationwide or 10 years and 150,000 miles in states that follow California emissions regulations. Relatively few hybrids have exceeded that mileage yet.

Given the length of the battery warranty, even if a hybrid owner does have to replace the battery pack after 80,000 or 150,000 miles, the cost is comparable to the cost of a transmission, which would likely have failed in other cars before that point. And hybrids have fewer other issues, which more makes up for any added battery cost.

Toyota says it has been able reduce costs in part by building its own batteries through its joint venture with Panasonic, through Panasonic EV Battery Corp., thereby reducing the impact from the battery middleman. And the company says it expects battery price drops to continue.

The nickel-metal hydride batteries in the all of the current hybrid vehicles are also recyclable which may help with price reductions.

Cheaper batteries are good news for more than owners of hybrids today. Electric cars, and hybrids that plug in for extra power are the most promising near-term alternative to oil consumption. And those cars will require bigger and better batteries to meet consumer demands for performance and range.

The next generation of advanced batteries are called lithium-ion batteries, like the one we had installed in the plug-in Prius we are testing. Lithium Ion batteries are smaller and lighter for the same energy storage capacity and so lend themselves better to full electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. However, they cost even more than nickel-metal hydride batteries. And expensive lithium-ion batteries are the biggest stumbling block to building more electric cars. So the race is on to lower the price of batteries across the board.

Toyota will start building lithium-ion batteries in 2009 and mass-producing them in 2010, the company says. But Toyota’s National Manager of Advance Technology Vehicles Bill Reinert says the company is already looking beyond lithium ion for future energy storage.

Dilithium crystals or a Flux Capacitor, anyone?

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about alternative fuels in our guide to driving green. And read "Taking charge: Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid."

Save on gas with morning fill-ups? Don’t bet on it

Some people say it’s better to buy your gasoline first thing in the morning, rather than in the heat of the day. That’s because gasoline, like all liquids, expands when heated. So, according to this advice, gasoline will be denser in the cool of early morning, meaning you’ll get more energy per gallon than later in the day.

The basic facts are correct, but the advice is not. Gasoline does expand and contract a little depending on its temperature. When gasoline rises from 60 to 75 degrees F, for instance, it increases in volume by 1 percent while the energy content remains the same.

But filling stations typically store their gasoline in underground tanks, where the temperature variation during the day is much less than in the air above. The result is that the temperature of the gasoline coming out of the fuel nozzle varies very little, if at all, during any 24-hour stretch at any particular station.

Craig Eerkes, former chairman of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, a trade group for filling stations, says that the expansion and contraction of gasoline due to day-long temperature shifts is, for the consumer, "Just so, so minuscule as to be almost nonexistent."

Judy Dugan, Research Director for the California advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, says, “The temperature variation between day and night at an individual gas station is apt to be negligible. She also notes that today’s double-welled tanks tend to keep the gasoline at the same temperature at which it’s deliver for a while. "If fuel is warm when it’s delivered to a station, it’ll still be warm when it’s sold a few hours later."

What we did. We performed some temperature testing at our auto-test facility in East Haddam, Connecticut, where we have an underground fuel tank similar to a typical filling station’s. Over a few summer days we measured the temperature of each gallon leaving our dispenser nozzle both in the early morning (8:30 a.m.) and early afternoon (12:30 to 1:00 p.m.). 

Results. While the air temperature between filling varied by up to 12 degrees, the fuel in our underground tank stayed at a steady 62 degrees F. As a result, we found that after the first few gallons were pumped, the fuel temperature coming out of the nozzle varied very little between morning and afternoon.

At both morning and afternoon fill-ups, however, the first few gallons out of the nozzle were notably warmer than following gallons. The temperature between the first and tenth gallons, for example, dropped by between 8 and 17 degrees. This was a result of the gas sitting in the pump dispenser, which was warmed by the sun. At our underground tank, which stores premium fuel, it’s not unusual for the gasoline to sit for hours or even days between fill-ups—unlike a typical filling station tank, which may be replenished every day or even more often. After pumping a car-tankful of gas, 20 gallons or so, the temperature had declined to that of the underground tank.

For consumers, this indicates that you could be marginally better off getting gas where the fuel hasn’t sat in a sun-warmed pump assembly for very long, regardless of the time of day. But that only holds true if the underground tank is keeping the fuel cold. As Dugan points out, that’s often not the case. Today’s double-walled tanks work just as well at keeping fuel warm as keeping it cool. If fuel is warm when it’s delivered to a station, it’ll still be warm when it’s sold a few hours later, whether that’s five in the morning or two in the afternoon.

Bottom line. Even with the temperature swings we saw in the first few gallons pumped at our facility, we didn’t see a big penalty for the consumer. A 15-degree difference, for example, would result in a one-percent gain in volume. Or, just a few cents difference on the first gallons pumped—not enough to change your schedule or routine in chasing costs, especially if it might increase your fuel consumption in the pursuit.

—Gordon Hard

For more information on saving fuel see our reports on how to get the best gas mileage and where to find the cheapest gas. 

 

Premium gas can be a waste of money

Many people use premium gasoline thinking that it’s better for engines than regular. That can be a costly misconception.

Regular gas typically has an octane rating of 87, while premium is rated at 91 to 93. But octane grades don't represent "good, better, best"; they simply measure a fuel's resistance to pre-ignition (pinging or knocking), a condition in which gasoline burns uncontrollably in the engine’s combustion chambers, possibly leading to engine damage. The higher the octane rating, the more resistance it provides.

Most engines are designed to run fine on regular gas. Using premium in them doesn’t improve performance; it only costs more money.

Even many cars for which premium is recommended can use regular gas without a problem. That’s because most modern engines can detect the presence of pre-ignition (which usually occurs under high-load conditions) and automatically make adjustments to eliminate it. The tradeoff when that happens is a slight decrease in power and gas mileage, but most people probably won’t notice it.

Generally, if your owner’s manual says "premium recommended," you can safely use regular gas.

Some engines do require premium gas. They’re typically more powerful ones used in sports and luxury cars. Those engines use a higher compression ratio, which can make them run hotter and make them more vulnerable to pinging. The high octane fuel helps them resist the condition. So if the manual says "premium required," follow it.

Learn how to save at the pump by visiting Consumer Reports’ guide to driving green. Check the latest national average gasoline prices.

Older drivers - Not the menace we’ve been told?

Jerry Seinfeld tells a joke about older drivers to the effect that in Florida it’s customary to back out of the driveway without looking first. Indeed, part of our culture believes in stereotypes about older drivers: that they’re a danger to the rest of us; that they don’t use turn signals (or do but then don’t turn them off); that they drive too slowly; and that they migrate to Florida like birds.

The view of older drivers emerging from a number of recent studies paints a more sympathetic picture, especially when viewed in the context of other drivers.

A 2007 RAND Corporation study came to these surprising conclusions:

• Statistics show older drivers are 16 percent likelier to cause a crash than drivers aged 25 to 64. But younger drivers are 188 percent likelier than those aged 25 to 64 to cause a crash.
• Older drivers, who represent 15 percent of the driving population, cause only 7 percent of all two-car crashes, while younger people, who comprise 13 percent of drivers, cause 43 percent of all two-car crashes.
• Drivers aged 70 and older are less likely to cause a crash than those aged 55 to 65. Of course, older drivers also drive far fewer miles per capita each year than younger people. But on the basis of crashes per licensed driver, they look pretty safe.

The RAND study found that older drivers are only slightly likelier to cause an accident but are much more likely to be killed in one. In fact, older drivers are almost seven times more likely to die in a crash than young drivers are. This is attributed to the increasing physical frailty that overtakes people as they age.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has done a number of studies along similar lines. The IIHS summarizes the fragility issue this way:

"In terms of fatalities, older drivers are a danger mostly to themselves and their passengers, who also typically are older and thus more vulnerable to injuries."

Several other factors characterize older drivers as a group that make them less of a highway threat than many believe. One of the most important factor is that older drivers self-regulate.

Many older drivers curtail their driving, take only familiar roads, avoid rush hour, and don’t drive after dark. Young drivers, on the other hand, drive many more miles per capita and travel at all times of day, but are much less susceptible to fatal injuries if they do have a crash. The net result is that the older-driver pool self-selects in favor of the safest drivers in the group.

When it comes to the question of whether older drivers should face more stringent licensing requirements, the jury is still out. Typical restrictions, varying by state, include shorter renewal cycles, visual acuity tests, and in-person written and road tests. The IIHS says it’s not at all clear whether these steps make a meaningful difference in preventing crashes.

The state of Oregon, meanwhile, has adopted an interesting alternative. Rather than making impaired driving an age-based issue, Oregon treats all drivers the same. Hospitals, doctors, other first responders and in fact anyone else can fill out a short form requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles to review somebody’s driving skills. The DMV takes particular care to weed out tattle-tale reports, which officials have said are pretty easy to spot. But if there is any sound evidence that an Oregon driver is not operating a vehicle safely, then the agency can call that person in for some testing, and then perhaps suspend or revoke that driver’s license.

In general, these studies show that while your grandparents may dawdle in the slow lane, they are likely safer drivers than the whipper-snappers that pass them.

—Gordon Hard

What is an ideal vehicle?

I recently posted a reality check "Let your priorities be your guide, but don’t ignore the big picture" encouraging readers to look beyond the latest list du jour to ensure they “understand the intention and methodology, lest something be lost in the sound bite.” While drafting that post was cathartic, it wasn’t enough to stymie my apoplectic reaction from reading the results of AutoPacific’s 2008 Ideal Vehicle Awards (IVA).

Reminding me of the last day of Little League when every player stood up to receive a trophy, these awards condense extensive research down to just 28 vehicle categories. Everyone is a winner… Well, not quite. I think the casual reader may not come out ahead.

AutoPacific asked "…owners [to] rate their new 2008 model year cars and trucks by how closely they come to their ideal, as measured by 15 key vehicle attributes. The cars or trucks that owners would change the least are the most ideal."

Like the many other studies issued by this respected automotive consulting firm, IVA leads to interesting findings, particularly for manufacturers. That said, what jumped out at me was the tie for "Mid-Size Sport Utility" class—one of 11 categories dedicated to SUVs.

A perennial hot segment, contested by myriad high-quality machines, midsized SUVs (along with sedans) have long-been at the heart of the American market.

The winners? The Jeep Liberty and Kia Sorento.

Cue sound effect: Screeching brakes.

Having driven both within the past week, I am dumbfounded that these would be acceptable to any consumer who comparison shopped and test drove other SUVs in this class, let alone be considered ideal.

Both were included in the recently published Consumer Reports August-issue SUV road test group. The Liberty earned the distinction of being the lowest-rated SUV in its class, with lows that include fuel economy, lack of agility, unsettled ride, fit and finish, noise, and braking.

The Sorento had a much stronger showing in our testing, placing it 14th among 24 models in the class. Still, its score was too low for it to meet Consumer Reports’ criteria to be recommended. Feeling like something of a throwback, the Sorento’s low points include ride, agility, steering, fuel economy, and reliability. If you don’t take our word for it, consider that owners surveyed by Consumer Reports rate it near-bottom for owner satisfaction, right above the Chevrolet Equinox and Suzuki Grand Vitara. (Many of our owners in that survey have owned the cars for years, rather than reporting on their brand new car as in the Ideal awards.)

But the Grand Vitara wins an Ideal award too, for "Compact SUV/Off-Road Vehicle." Wait a minute. Isn’t that exactly what the Sorento and Liberty are? The Grand Vitara is all of one inch shorter than a Liberty, and it has much more room inside. Plus the Liberty and Sorento are better off-road than the Grand Vitara.

So what gives? Well, with so many classes in their study, the Mid-Size Crossover SUV category must be where all the more refined models fit, reflecting the trend of SUVs migrating to unibody platforms…

Here, we find the Ford Escape came out on top in the AutoPacific study. However, in Consumer Reports’ testing, we place it 21st out of 24. (We do not distinguish SUV versus crossover SUV for rankings.) Again, its score was too low to be recommended. One big reason for that—the Escape had extremely long braking distances, the worst of any vehicle we’ve recently tested. Most owners probably don’t know that—unless they own a test track. 

Bottom line: Lists have their place as a pre-filtered means for initiating conversation and research. (In fact, CR presents myriad lists that filter our test and survey results to help consumers find the information they seek.) But, as we have said before, it pays to look at the bigger picture. For us, a vehicle that earns a good test score and has average or better fuel economy, safety ratings, and predicted reliability is ideal.

—Jeff Bartlett

You can build your own Top 10 list based on the factors that matter most to you using our New Car Selector tool.

Fuel economy feedback

A number of letters and e-mails have reached my desk regarding our most recent test of compact economy cars in the July 2008 test group.

One of the more frequent comments was why we didn't test Volkswagen's diesel models. We would have loved to include a TDI Jetta or Rabbit, but there's one, slight problem: neither are currently for sale in the United States. We tested a Jetta TDI in 2006 (available to subscribers) and got 34 mpg overall. VW plans to reintroduce the Jetta TDI this August; we'll buy and test one as soon as we can. (Read "How we test fuel economy.")

Another comment burning up my in-box was from readers saying how their 3-cylinder Geo Metro got 50 mpg gallon and "Why the heck aren't modern cars as fuel efficient?" One of the reasons cars today haven't made greater strides in fuel economy is that while engines and transmissions have gotten more powerful and efficient, the cars themselves have gotten heavier. You see, over the years, we've all become accustomed to air conditioning, power windows and door locks, quiet (heavily insulated) interiors, and high-end, multi-speaker stereo systems. Plus we take comfort in having front and side air bags, side-impact door beams, and solid overall structures. Plus, larger vehicles are often fitted with all-wheel drive and third-row seats. All of these creature comforts and safety gear add weight. And the extra poundage detracts from fuel economy.

Also, the engines and transmissions in cars today have helped improve performance to levels that was unheard of 20 years ago. For example, the last Toyota RAV4 V6 we tested went from 0-60 mph in 6.7 seconds and still returned 22 mpg overall. Our model had a third-row seat, standard stability control, and could tow 3,500 pounds. Put this in historical perspective and it's impressive: A two-seat Nissan 300ZX we tested in 1992 made it to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds, but certainly didn’t have the utility, safety equipment, fuel economy, or light-duty off-road ability of a modern RAV4.

However, in some respects, while cars haven't made the fuel economy strides they could have, all the vehicles are a LOT safer. While most of this safety equipment adds weight, we think it's a fair tradeoff. And when you think about it, the 1980s micro cars were all very thrifty on fuel, but none had antilock brakes, stability control, or front-, side-, or head-protection air bags.

Ideally, we think fuel economy should not come at the expense of safety. Today's cars are safer than anything built 20-30 years ago; they’re also cleaner and more comfortable. I don't miss the "good old days" in terms of automotive safety. And the future looks exciting with all the emerging technologies (electric cars; plug-in hybrids; cleaner diesels). And yes, we'll test all that we can, once they become available.

—Mike Quincy

For information on the most fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels, see our guide to driving green. Also, see our video above on how to improve your gas mileage.