Top 10 Summertime Toys

One of these sexy drop-tops could be the perfect reward for your hard labor. There are plenty of options, from affordable to extravagant, so you don't have to blow your retirement savings.

Buying a car purely as a personal indulgence may be more within reach than you think. The article list of Top 10 Summertime Toys includes racy convertibles that start at about $20,000 and go up to more than 10 times that.

But exactly how much wealth do you have to amass before you can safely justify purchasing even a moderately priced convertible purely for the sake of enjoyment?

First, have enough money invested to fund your retirement until at least age 95, possibly even longer, says John Wasik, personal finance columnist and author of The Merchant of Power. “If a dream car purchase puts you into debt, then it's unwise,” he says. “Financing a depreciating asset is always a bad idea, but if a sports car makes you feel alive and you aren't financing the thrill with money you'll need later, then by all means you should put the pedal to the metal.”

We’ve concocted a list of entertaining convertibles in a wide range of prices that serve as rolling rewards for a life well lived. Far from being rational choices, ragtops convey a sense of freedom and emotion that no other vehicle can offer, which makes them popular choices as personal extravagances.

If price is a primary concern, there are affordable convertibles like the Mazda MX-5 Miata and Pontiac Solstice, both of which made our top 10 list of summer reward cars. Mid-range drop-tops like the BMW Z4 and Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class step up the luxury and performance without busting a decent-sized budget. Then there are special roadsters like the Dodge Viper SRT10, Ferrari F430 Spider and extremely rare Spyker C12 LaTurbie, an automotive testament to one’s net worth and, perhaps, need for attention.

An Emotional Choice

A car can speak volumes about its driver, says Dr. Charles Kenny, a psychologist who has conducted research for the likes of General Motors, Nissan and Toyota. He says that most car purchases fill an emotional need, whether the buyer cares to admit it or not.

“Single women do not usually want to drive four-door sedans, no matter how nice or how luxurious,” says Kenny, who is president of psychology firm The Right Brain People. “They feel that driving a four-door car says to others that they are committed, taken, settled down and are older and stodgy.”

On the other hand, those who buy ultra-luxury models might expose a need for status and uniqueness, while sports car owners may seek to impart youthful exuberance and rejuvenation. “Buying, owning, being seen in and driving fast, exciting sports cars is a way for people to reassure themselves and tell others that they can in fact be in control of their impulses — like driving too fast and doing almost anything else you can imagine to excess — while still having fun, escaping and expressing themselves,” Dr. Kenny says.

Though research shows that some drop-tops, like Volkswagen’s New Beetle Convertible, tend to have a higher percentage of female buyers, the quickest and costliest convertibles attract more of a testosterone-fueled following. See our feature on the Top 10 Luxury Vehicles Driven by Men for more on this topic.

“Men are drawn to higher-priced, ‘performance’ cars, with 41 percent citing looks and design as a key consideration,” says Doug Scott, Senior VP at the market research firm GfK Automotive. Women, on the other hand, want more conservative, value-oriented models that are fun yet affordable and practical, he says.

Chicago attorney Kathleen Zellner bucks the trend. As an avid car buff, her personal fleet currently includes a 2003 Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG and a 2006 Porsche 911 Turbo. In a reluctant nod to practicality, as well as to her husband’s bird-hunting hobby, she also drives a Lexus LX 470 SUV.

“Driving sports cars is one of the things I’ve done to reward myself — it’s where I’ve allowed myself to be extravagant in an otherwise extremely disciplined and structured life,” Zellner says. “Plus, it’s a way to stand out in what is a male-dominated business — I like to show the guys I’m every bit as skilled a driver as they are, and probably more so.”

Renting Versus Owning

Fortunately for those who can’t afford (or can’t justify buying) a costly sports car, a growing rental market for upscale rides can help even those with more moderate salaries scratch the itch to feel affluent for a day.

For example, Altitude Dream Cars in Denver, Colo., will rent you a Lotus Elise for as little as $299 a day, or a Porsche Boxster for $349. If you want to make the ultimate impression, a Lamborghini Gallardo will set you back a staggering $1,395 for a 24-hour period. Still, that’s around $179,000 less than actually buying one to impress the former homecoming queen at your high school reunion. Click here to read more about exotic car rentals.

Regardless of how much you spend on a flashy, fun roadster, owning or even just renting one is a great reward. “Driving a good car is one of the few things in my life that I don’t overanalyze and worry about,” Zellner says. “It’s just something I enjoy.”

To make this list, cars had to be convertibles with only two seats. We left out four-seaters because of their bias toward practicality under the premise that two-seat roadsters make no such pretenses — they’re the embodiment of automotive style and encourage driving purely for the sake of enjoyment. The list reflects ForbesAutos editors’ subjective opinions based on collective reporting and test-drives.

10. Most Underrated Roadster

2007 BMW Z4
MSRP: $36,400 - $52,100

The Z4 carries all the visceral appeal of classic European roadsters, yet it tends to get lost in a crowded market. It's extremely satisfying to drive, practical enough for daily use and surprisingly calm with the top down.

Everything about the Z4 warrants a closer look, whether in the quick 215-hp 3.0i, quicker 255-hp 3.0si or quickest 333-hp M Roadster version, each of which delivers progressively sharper handling.

9. Best Budget Ragtop

2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata
MSRP: $20,500 - $26,520

A modern version of the classic roadsters from the 1960s and '70s, the MX-5 Miata remains one of the most entertaining rides at any price. An optional power retractable hardtop keeps the fun rolling when the temperature dips.

The MX-5 Miata packs a lively, 170-hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with a short-throw six-speed manual gearbox among its three transmission choices. It also hugs corners like few others, making it a real value in terms of driving enjoyment per dollar.

8. Best Flash for the Cash

2007 Pontiac Solstice
MSRP: $21,500 - $27,115

Though not quite as polished as the Mazda MX-5 Miata, the two-seat Pontiac Solstice delivers exotic-car curb appeal thanks to curvaceous, low-slung styling. But don't expect a lot of storage space.

The base Solstice backs up its good looks with decent performance from a peppy 177-hp four-cylinder engine. The turbocharged 260-hp GXP version is more satisfying.

7. Most 'Affordable' Luxury Roadster

2007 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
MSRP: $43,350 - $62,500

Combining elegant styling and deft German engineering, the SLK doesn't force you to compromise comfort and luxury — even in cooler months. A retractable power-operated roof makes it a true four-season convertible.

Buyers can choose from 228-hp and 268-hp V6-equipped models, as well as the hot-blooded SLK55 AMG that features a burly 355-hp 5.4-liter V8 engine shoehorned under the tiny hood.

6. Best Car for Weekend Racers

2007 Lotus Elise
MSRP: $46,270

The diminutive Elise looks and acts like it belongs on a racetrack more than a roadway. Lightweight aluminum construction allows this two-seater to wring maximum velocity out of its 190-hp 1.8-liter Toyota-sourced engine and hit 60 mph in just under 5 seconds.

Serious racers should opt for the $2,495 Track Pack, which includes Bilstein dampers, an adjustable front sway bar, a rear control-arm brace and provisions for a bolt-in harness bar, all designed for hardcore track driving.

5. Best Modern Classic

2007 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible
MSRP: $52,590

The Chevrolet Corvette is the quintessential American sports car; anyone who grew up during the '50s, '60s or '70s probably lusted after a 'Vette. Now is a great time to get one — the current version is arguably the best ever, yet it stays true to the original.

A 400-hp 6.0-liter V8 engine catapults the Corvette to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds. Besides grinning on the straights, you'll smile when the roads turn twisty thanks to its tight suspension. A burly exhaust sound and coarse nature keep that classic muscle-car persona alive.

4. Best Brute

2008 Dodge Viper SRT10
MSRP: $85,000 (estimated)

With its 600-hp V10, firm suspension, massive wheels and minimalist cockpit, the aggressively styled Viper SRT10 is all about visceral appeal and raw performance. It makes no apologies for its brutish nature, which can definitely be intimidating.

Its 8.4-liter V10 engine generates enough muscle to catapult the Viper to 60 mph in less than four seconds, while bulked-up brakes will bring it back to a standstill from that speed in just 100 feet.

3. Best Attention Getter

2007 Ferrari F430 Spider
MSRP: $192,484

Few cars scream excess and sex appeal more loudly than a red Ferrari. The F430 Spider is currently the only Ferrari with a drop-top. Though engineered for speed, it's actually comfortable for casual cruising, too.

Like a work of art, the F430's mid-mounted 4.3-liter V8 engine sits beneath a glass cover. It's not just for show, though, and generates 490 hp for a 0-60 mph time of around 4 seconds.

2. Best Display of Wealth

2007 Spyker C12 LaTurbie
MSRP: $345,625

We're hard pressed to find a car as rare and impressive as the Spyker C12 LaTurbie, which hails from Holland and could make a Porsche seem mundane. The workmanship of its interior is stunning, with aeronautical details that evoke the company's history of building planes.

Hand-built in limited numbers, this dramatically sculpted Dutch treat exploits a mid-mounted, Audi-sourced 500-hp W12 engine to register a 3.9-second 0-60 mph time and a wildly illegal top speed of 196 mph.

1. Best All-Around Performer

2007 Porsche Boxster
MSRP: $45,600

With classic, uncluttered styling, a comfortable interior, commodious cargo space and stellar performance, the Porsche Boxster excels in every aspect. Thoughtful design — like not one, but two trunks and an easy-to-use top — make it practical enough for daily use.

The base model is more than fast enough, with its 245-hp 2.7-liter six-cylinder engine behind the seats. The S version takes performance to a higher level with a 3.4-liter 295-hp six-cylinder. Also key to the Boxster's appeal is long-standing reliability.
(C)Forbes

Top 20 Most Dangerous Vehicles

Here are the 20 most dangerous vehicles according to 'real world safety' from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hoping to stay safe on the road? You might want to avoid certain cars.

For example, the Nissan 350Z has a death rate that's about double that of the average sports car.

But it's not for the reasons you might think. In this case, says Russ Rader, communications director for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an organization that represents the interests of the insurance industry, the 350Z is part of a group of vehicles that tends to be driven by younger, less-experienced or riskier drivers, and stands out for having high death rates, through no particular fault of the car.

"When they are in crashes," he adds, "they're particularly serious ones."

This illustrates a key point: Simply looking at the historical death rates for one particular model might not give much insight into the relative danger, or safety, of driving that vehicle. Furthermore, the most recent available federal data, interpreted by make and model by the IIHS, covers 2001 to 2004 model years in calendar years 2002 to 2005. Many models have had significant changes in safety equipment or complete redesigns since then.

The consensus among several safety experts we asked is that the best way to predict how dangerous or safe a new vehicle will be comes from looking at the way it's configured, particularly with respect to several important factors — side-impact protection, stability control and rollover risk — that together span a wide range in real-world safety.

That's what we did. Topping the list of the least safe: the Buick Rendezvous, the Ford Ranger/Mazda B-Series, the Nissan Frontier, the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner and the Toyota Yaris.

High-Priority Protection
Among the various crash tests the IIHS performs on new vehicles, according to Rader, they see the widest range of results in those with side-impact and rear whiplash protection.

"What makes a vehicle unsafe today is a lack of side-impact protection," he says. "Whiplash is not a life-threatening injury, but head injuries [from a side impact] are commonly life-threatening."

Side-curtain airbags have been shown to greatly increase the chances of surviving a classic "T-bone" side-impact accident, such as when the other vehicle runs a stoplight, and depending on the design, they can also increase the chances of surviving a rollover. Side-curtain bags are mandated for all 2009 vehicles, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these alone will reduce fatal side-impact head injuries by 45 percent, saving up to 1,000 lives per year.

"Side airbags designed to protect your head are crucial, because a head injury is the most common fatal injury in a crash," says Rader. "It's the difference between life and death."

Structurally Sound
Along with side airbags, a vehicle also needs a well-built side structure to withstand a strong blow from vehicles of varying heights, says Rader.

Which leads to another major point: "Size and weight are very important aspects of safety," he says. "The laws of physics always apply in a crash. That means that people in smaller and lighter vehicles are always at a disadvantage in crashes with other vehicles."

In single-vehicle crashes, the weight advantage isn't as pronounced, but the statistics still point in favor of larger, if not heavier vehicles, he says.

However, John Linkov, managing editor of Consumer Reports, says that smaller and lighter vehicles aren't necessarily more dangerous. In many cases, they may offer handling and maneuverability advantages to help avoid accidents.

"A more nimble, better-handling vehicle," he says, "is likely going to be easier to control in an emergency and help the driver avoid the dangerous situation."

While generally heavier SUVs and pickups are at an advantage in multi-vehicle accidents, they've been shown to be at quite a disadvantage in single-vehicle accidents (such as when the driver falls asleep, or loses control swerving around a deer), which comprise 43 percent of fatal accidents.

In this type of accident, SUVs and pickups have more than double the chance of rolling over, according to NHTSA data. This risk relates closely to overall federal fatality data, showing that SUVs and pickups generally have a higher fatality rate than cars of a similar weight.

Corrective Measures
Electronic stability control systems, which smartly apply the brakes on one or more of the wheels as best to avoid loss of vehicle control in an extreme maneuver, have been offered for more than a decade in some luxury and high-performance vehicles, but the technology has been trickling down to most mainline brands over the past several model years.

NHTSA has called it the most significant development since the seat belt, and the federal government has mandated electronic stability control, but not until the 2012 model year. NHTSA estimates that the stability control mandate will prevent up to 9,600 fatalities and 238,000 injuries annually, at an average cost of $111 per vehicle in addition to the cost of antilock brakes, which most vehicles already offer as standard equipment or as an option.

"Electronic stability control is one of those rare safety features that's having a dramatic effect on saving lives," says Rader. "Stability control alone can reduce the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes by 56 percent. And it can reduce fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 80 percent for SUVs, 77 percent for passenger cars."

Even though stability control was only offered in some of the more expensive SUVs a few years ago, Rader says that its impact is already easily seen in the Institute's yearly list of vehicles with the lowest death rates. Rader said that in the past, only a few of them were SUVs, but now they make up nearly half of the list.

Terrifying Trucks
Pickups are another surprisingly unsafe group of vehicles. Based on fatality-rate data, they're by far the most dangerous, says Michael Dulberger, president of the safety advocacy group Informed for Life.

"Pickups as a class have the highest rate of fatality and serious injury," he says, "and they have a very high rollover risk."

Rader agrees. "Pickups have a rollover problem," he says. "They have a high center of gravity and a high propensity to roll over." And making matters worse, "They're the laggards in electronic stability control," he says.

Last year, only one pickup model offered electronic stability control, according to Rader, while this year it's standard on 8 percent of models and optional on 20 percent. By comparison, 87 percent of SUVs now have standard stability control, according to the Institute.

Linkov agrees that some pickups pose the most danger to inexperienced drivers. "What we're seeing is that young people in places where pickups are a de facto choice are at an especially strong risk, with their propensity to roll over," he says.

Any vehicle can be especially unsafe if it's used in a way it's not designed for, such as if a high-clearance pickup is used primarily empty on curvy, hilly roads, according to Linkov.

"Combine that with a poorly trained driver," he says, "and it's dangerous."

The Methodology
As we've outlined, generalized fatality statistics point toward today's most dangerous new vehicles as those that are light, don't provide proper side-impact protection (airbags), have a higher propensity to roll over, don't handle particularly well and lack electronic stability control.

Informed for Life releases SCORE (Statistical Combination of Risk Elements) data each year, which combines all the available safety data from the federal government and the IIHS, along with the role of weight and the presence of stability control, into a single number for each particular model, making it easier to compare vehicles of varying sizes or body types.

The SCORE is calculated according to the role that each element plays in general fatal accidents. For instance, as about 26 percent of national accident fatalities occur in a side impact, 26 percent of the SCORE depends on the vehicle's rated side-impact protection.

The system, which has been implemented for about five years, more closely matches the fatality rate on a model-by-model basis than either IIHS or NHTSA ratings alone. And it's easy to decipher; it's on a scale that's proportional to risk, with the average passenger car ranked 100.

So, for instance, a SCORE of 150 means that the relative risk of driver fatality is 50 percent higher than for the average passenger car. In the group's 2007 list, the most dangerous vehicle, the Buick Rendezvous, at 161, has more than three times the relative risk of fatality than the Hyundai Entourage and Kia Sedona minivans, at 51.

To distill our list of the most dangerous vehicles, we looked at Informed for Life's bottom-of-the-heap results for 2007 model-year vehicles, including vehicles with a full range of crash-test results from NHTSA, the IIHS, or a combination of the two; and to also consider the role of accident avoidance (or lack thereof), we broke any ties with Consumer Reports' accident avoidance scores.

CR first measures the vehicle's maximum stable speed through emergency handling, essentially simulating a quick swerve around an obstacle and back into the right lane, then factors in driving position, visibility and seat comfort — all issues that the organization deems important in successfully avoiding an accident.

We're aware that this is a snapshot of the most dangerous cars among those that have been extensively tested, and that there may be more dangerous vehicles that either haven't yet been fully crash-tested or were only partially tested. Please consult www.safercar.gov or www.iihs.org if you're concerned about a particular model.

How Carmakers Reacted
Automakers were generally supportive of a methodology that looked for the safest — or in this case, the least safe — vehicles through a composite assessment of existing crash-test results, and considering side-impact protection and rollover likelihood, instead of looking at prior model-by-model fatality or injury data.

GM
Alan Adler, GM's safety spokesman, confirms that it's important to look at a wide range of information. "You've identified two technologies [side airbags and stability control] that are important, and we have rollout plans for both," says Adler.

More than 40 percent of GM's light trucks now have side-curtain airbags that allow head protection even in rollovers. Stability control is offered in 35 percent of GM vehicles for 2007, and the percentage rises to about 50 percent for 2008, according to Adler. Regarding SUVs and pickups, Adler says that "rollover is a big deal" to the company, which now does its own rollover safety testing.

To shoppers who might wonder why stability control isn't yet installed in more vehicles, GM's Adler says, "It isn't something you can slap on a vehicle," and explains that the automaker has been working to install it across the board ever since the agencies have revealed its importance. "It's a major engineering change to the vehicle."

Toyota
Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong questions the correlation between weight and safety; he says that Toyota has been incorporating more high-strength steel, which improves crash resistance yet saves weight, though again, at a higher cost to the automaker.

Kwong said that side-impact airbags are now available on all Toyota cars. They're optional on the Corolla, along with the Yaris and Matrix, two cars that ranked among the least-safe vehicles, according to our methodology, without the option.

"Those models are more price sensitive," especially the Yaris, which is why the side bags are optional, according to Kwong. He adds that dealerships are told to inform shoppers of the benefits of the Yaris's side airbag system.

Ford
Several Ford Motor vehicles were on our Most Dangerous list, but the company's safety spokesman, Daniel Jarvis, explains that these are all products near the end of their life cycle and not representative of the rest of Ford's model lineup.

Jarvis said the company places a strong emphasis on safety. Several of the vehicles that place highest in crash tests are from Ford, and the company has aggressive programs in place to install side airbags and stability control across its entire fleet.

"By the end of calendar year 2009, all retail vehicles will have stability control," says Jarvis; that would be nearly three years ahead of the federal mandate. Ford has also made an enhanced version, called Roll Stability Control, aimed to prevent the likelihood of rollover, standard on its larger Expedition and Explorer SUVs, and the company is adding the system to the smaller Escape sport-utility for the '08 model year.

Jarvis suggests there are a number of reasons why pickups have been among the last to get stability control, but one is that they come in such a wide range of powertrains and configurations, and each one of them needs to be engineered individually. "Complexity is one factor," he says.

Nissan
"Nissan has not had the opportunity to fully understand the methodology that went into this listing," says Jeannine Ginivan, a spokeswoman for Nissan. "That being said, Nissan takes its commitment to safety very seriously.

"All Nissan and Infiniti vehicles are engineered to meet or exceed government safety regulations as well as our own rigorous internal safety requirements — the Nissan Xterra and the Nissan Frontier are no exceptions. Nissan's electronic stability control feature, known as Vehicle Dynamic Control, is standard on the Xterra and currently an option on the Frontier. Rollover curtain airbags are also optional on both vehicles.

"As a company, we are committed to the safety of our vehicles and our drivers, and we urge everyone driving a Nissan or Infiniti vehicle to do so safely."

Suzuki
"At Suzuki, we place the utmost priority on manufacturing and selling safe vehicles, and both Forenza and Reno comply with all federal motor-vehicle safety standards," says David Boldt, communications manager. "Additionally, like all 2007 Suzuki passenger cars, the Forenza and Reno offer front-seat-mounted side airbags for both driver and passenger, as well as several layers of standard safety equipment.

"It's also important to note the active safety benefits provided by Forenza and Reno, with composed handling (four-wheel independent suspension), precise steering and four-wheel disc braking. Add excellent outward visibility for driver and passengers, and Suzuki's approach is to help the driver avoid an accident before it occurs."

Honda, Hyundai and Kia did not return calls for comment.

1. Buick Rendezvous
Four-Door SUV
SCORE: 161
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: N/A

The minivan-based Rendezvous helped bring new customers to Buick dealerships, thanks to the Tiger Woods ad campaign behind it. But after the 2007 model year, the Rendezvous, with its abysmal three-star (out of five) NHTSA frontal impact rating, is history, to be replaced by the 2008 Buick Enclave, a crossover SUV with a full roster of standard safety equipment.

2. Ford Ranger/Mazda B-Series
Pickup, Regular Cab/Extended Cab: Four-Wheel Drive
SCORE: 153
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: N/A

The Ranger still follows a simple, proven design that's good for pickup buyers who really want to keep it basic and affordable. Unfortunately, side airbags or curtain bags aren't available, even as an option; neither is stability control. What's more, the Ranger (and the nearly identical B-Series) gets a low three-star NHTSA rollover rating, (which corresponds to a 20% to 30% risk of rollover in a single-vehicle crash) with one of the highest rollover risk factors (0.3) of any vehicle.

3. Nissan Frontier
Extended-Cab Pickup
SCORE: 145
ConsumerReports' accident avoidance: Average

Stability control is optional on the Frontier, and recommended considering its three-star NHTSA rollover rating. The King Cab Frontier has surprisingly low three-star NHTSA frontal crash-test ratings (most other pickups do quite well in the frontal tests), though a four-door Crew Cab Frontier was given a better four-star frontal rating. The Frontier was also rated "Poor" (out of good, acceptable, marginal or poor) by the IIHS in rear impact. Both Frontiers tested didn't have side airbags or side curtain bags, which are also optional.

4. Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner
Four-Door SUVs
SCORE: 138
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: N/A

Ford's small sport-utility vehicle, the Escape, and its cosmetically different sibling, the Mariner, were given an overall evaluation of "Poor" (the lowest possible rating) from the IIHS due to its lacking driver torso- and head-protection in the Institute's side-impact crash test (without the optional side airbag package). The federal government also gives the Mariner one of few three-star ratings, which corresponds to a relatively high risk of rollover. And stability control isn't available. Waiting for the '08 would be a smart move, as front side airbags, side curtain bags and stability control will all finally be standard.

5. Toyota Yaris
Four-Door
SCORE: 132
ConsumerReports' accident avoidance: Worse than average

Even though the Yaris has impressive fuel efficiency, a nicely designed interior, high expected reliability, and a number of other positive attributes, Consumer Reports' John Linkov says that the Yaris can't be recommended, "because its emergency handling is quite tail-happy and the driver could get out of control very quickly." And to make an especially dangerous combination, the Yaris four-door performs badly in both major side-crash tests, with three stars from NHTSA and a "Poor" rating from the IIHS.

6. Hyundai Accent
Four-Door
SCORE: 132
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The Accent tested near the bottom among all cars, according to IIHS crash testing, with the organization giving it a "Poor" rating in both side-impact and rear-impact tests, plus an unimpressive "Acceptable" frontal rating. And this is with standard side airbags. When the federal government tested an Accent four-door sedan, it rated its side-impact performance with three stars--the lowest it gets in 2007.

7. Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe
Four-Door
SCORE: 131
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The Matrix and the closely related Vibe fair acceptably with four- and five-star results in the federal government's crash tests. But without the optional side airbags, the Matrix gets only three stars for front-seat passengers in the side-impact test. Stability control is optional on both models, which are due to be replaced by a new model after '08.

8. Kia Rio
Four-Door
SCORE: 127
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Better than average

The Rio is structurally similar to the Hyundai Accent. And like the Accent, it gets a low, three-star NHTSA side impact rating, plus appalling "Poor" ratings in both side- and rear-impact tests and the not-quite-passable "Acceptable" frontal rating from the IIHS. Surprisingly, those results are with the standard side airbags. Fortunately, the Rio has "better than average" accident avoidance qualities, according to Consumer Reports testing.

9. Chevrolet Aveo
Four-Door
SCORE: 126
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The basic, lightweight Aveo, which is assembled in Korea by GM affiliate Daewoo, is the lowest-priced U.S.-market vehicle, starting at $9,995 for 2007. Side airbags are standard for front passengers, but not in back, and by the three-star side-impact result for rear-seat passengers and the "Marginal" side-impact result from the IIHS, occupants might not fare so well in a side-impact accident.

10. Suzuki Reno/Forenza
Five-Door/ Five-Door
SCORE: 125
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The Reno and Forenza, a four-door hatchback and sedan, respectively, are also made by GM-Daewoo in Korea. Both come with standard front seat-mounted side airbags, but that doesn't seem to help them in IIHS side-impact tests, where they get "Poor" ratings in side impact, as well as rear impact. Side curtain airbags and stability control aren't available in either the Reno or Forenza.

11. Ford Focus
Two-Door Hatchback
SCORE: 124
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The economical Focus received a "Poor" rating from the IIHS in its side impact test, and in federal tests it achieved only a three-star rating, with an accompanying warning regarding the high likelihood of head trauma. Compiling the risk, side-curtain airbags and stability control aren't available on the Focus, and seat-mounted side airbags are optional for front occupants.

12. Jeep Liberty
Four-Door SUV
SCORE: 118
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The Jeep Liberty maneuvers much better in real-world driving than its height might suggest, and the "Average" CR accident avoidance score is reassuring. Yet it's also given just three stars in the federal rollover rating system. Additionally, in IIHS tests, the Liberty didn't fare so well, with a "Poor" rating in rear impact and a "Marginal" rating in front impact, together corresponding to a significantly higher chance of injuries if an accident occurs.

13. Dodge Dakota
Four-Door Pickup
SCORE: 117
Consumer Reports'accident avoidance: Average

First, the good: The mid-size Dakota is one of the least-tipsy pickups, with a four-star rollover rating, plus an "Average" accident avoidance rating. Now, the bad: It's rated "Acceptable" in front- and rear-impact tests, and there's no available stability control. Side airbags and side-curtain bags are optional.

14. Chevrolet Cobalt/Pontiac G5
Two-Door
SCORE: 117
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Much better than average (Cobalt SS)

The Chevy Cobalt and its almost identical twin, the Pontiac G5, are a little more dangerous than average due to their side-impact performance. The IIHS gave the Cobalt a "Poor" evaluation in its side-impact tests, and when NHTSA tested the Cobalt, they noted a safety concern over the higher-than-average likelihood of serious head trauma. Front-side airbags and side-curtain airbags are optional, but stability control is not available.

15. Nissan Xterra
Four-Door SUV
SCORE: 115
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The tall, boxy Xterra sport-utility vehicle flaunts its rugged looks toward active young men, and fortunately comes with stability control to help remedy its three-star NHTSA rollover rating and especially high rollover risk. Frontal impact results are passable but unspectacular, at four stars. Side and side-curtain airbags are optional.

16. Saturn ION
Four-Door
SCORE: 115
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Better than average

The ION shares its underpinnings with the Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5, but has some more substantial differences. For instance, the rollover index is slightly better. The ION gets a "Poor" rating from the IIHS in side-impact testing, along with a three-star NHTSA side-impact rating for front occupants. Head-protective side-curtain airbags are optional; stability control is not.

17. Chrysler PT Cruiser
Van
SCORE: 114
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Average

The very retro-stylish yet roomy PT Cruiser has been around for quite a few years essentially unchanged, with no major update during that time. NHTSA side-impact performance for front occupants is a modest four stars. Front-seat side airbags aren't standard on all Cruisers, but they're available at extra cost. Stability control isn't available at all.

18. Honda S2000
Convertible
SCORE: 114
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Much better than average

The high-performance S2000 convertible has stellar handling and accident avoidance, and gets a surprisingly good five-star rating in NHTSA's side-impact test, plus a top five-star mark for rollover risk. But side airbags aren't at all available on the little, low-riding roadster.

19. Toyota Scion tC
Two-Door
SCORE: 113
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Better than average

Like most small, sporty coupes, the tC boasts good handling--as evidenced by CR's "better than average" rating for accident avoidance and a relatively low risk of rollover. But side-impact airbags aren't standard and if not equipped with the optional side airbags and curtain bags, the tC can be a little risky. It received a just-acceptable, four-star side-impact rating,

20. Mazda3
Four-Door/Five-Door Hatchback
SCORE: 113
Consumer Reports' accident avoidance: Much better than average

The Mazda3 has been the darling of automotive critics. The styling is unique and still stands out several years after introduction, the powertrain is peppy, and it's one of the best-handling small cars. Now for the bad part: Both the sedan and hatchback versions of the 3 fared very poorly in side-impact crash tests, garnering a lowly three-star rating from NHTSA and the lowest "Poor" rating from the IIHS. Side airbags aren't standard, either.
(C)Forbes

BMW Mini Colorado - in talks to create Mini SUV

Auto-parts supplier and German automaker would assemble 65,000 of a vehicle called Mini Colorado at a plant in Graz, Austria, a newspaper reports.

Magna International is in talks with BMW AG to build a larger version of the upscale German automaker's trendy Mini cars, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported Thursday.

The sport utility vehicle would be called the Mini Colorado, with 65,000 to be assembled annually at Magna's Steyr plant in Graz, Austria, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources.

Tracy Fuerst, a spokeswoman for Aurora, Ontario-based Magna told Reuters that the "reports of potential future BMW and Volkswagen assembly programs are speculative and, as a matter of policy, we will not comment on them".

"As a Tier 1 automotive supplier, we are constantly engaged in confidential discussions with [original equipment manufacturers] regarding potential future business," she said.

The Canadian auto-parts maker is also rumored to be in talks with Volkswagen AG about assembling 20,000 roadsters annually for VW at the Steyr plant, the Globe said.

"It would be positive news for Magna because, as is well known, it is facing the loss of pretty significant volumes," said David Tyerman, an analyst at Scotia Capital.

The reports came on the same day that DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler Group announced it was shifting full-sized car production from Magna's Steyr plant to its own Brampton, Ontario, plant, where it will invest $1.2 billion for upgrades of the Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum and Dodge Charger models.

BMW said in May it planned to pull production of its X3 mid-sized SUV from the Steyr plant and transfer it to its own plant in South Carolina. The X3 represented about 45 percent of total vehicles assembled at Steyr.

"So its assembly facility in Graz, Austria, would be significantly under-utilized and obviously these new programs would help a lot in filling that production hole," Tyerman said.

Magna shares were little changed in late-session trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
(C)Reuters

Chrysler scraps luxury car plans

Chrysler throws out plans for Imperial luxury sedan touted by actress Longoria as Cerberus Capital readies take-over.

Chrysler Group has scrapped plans for a luxury sedan that would have represented a bigger, heavier and less-fuel-efficient version of its Chrysler 300C, citing high gasoline prices and tougher fuel economy standards.

Chrysler said on Wednesday that it was dropping production plans for the Imperial, a high-riding luxury sedan that prompted comparisons with the Rolls-Royce Phantom.

The decision to scrap the Chrysler Imperial marked the first step in a sweeping review of future rear-wheel drive vehicles as Cerberus Capital Management prepares to take over the loss-making automaker, two people familiar with the process said.

Chrysler had introduced a concept version of the Imperial with a splashy display featuring actress Eva Longoria at the 2006 Detroit auto show, reviving a nameplate that had represented the top of the automaker's line for decades.

The Canadian Auto Workers union had been told that the Imperial was slated to go into production at Chrysler's Brampton, Ontario, plant in 2009 for release in 2010.

Earlier this month, union officials in Canada were briefed on the company's decision to drop the plan, a Chrysler spokesman said.

"It would have been irresponsible for us to move forward with the business plan for the Imperial," Chrysler spokesman Dave Elshoff said.

Cerberus is acquiring 80.1 percent of Chrysler from its German parent DaimlerChrysler AG in a $7.4-billion deal expected to close as soon as this month.

The Imperial would have been built on a rear-wheel-drive platform shared with Daimler's Mercedes. It would also have added a gas-guzzling sedan to Chrysler's line-up at a time when it is looking to respond to consumer demands for improved fuel efficiency and facing tougher U.S. government regulations.

In preparation for taking over Chrysler, Cerberus has begun lobbying against the higher fleet-wide fuel economy standards passed by the U.S. Senate.

Cerberus Chairman John Snow told an audience in Detroit last week that Senate legislation to require new autos to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would risk the survival of the U.S. auto industry. Snow also said Cerberus would be reviewing Chrysler's business plans on an ongoing basis.

"There's going to be a continuing exchange of ideas and looking at what can be done better, what can be improved," he said.

As part of that process, development work on future rear-wheel drive sedans for 2010 and beyond is expected to be suspended for several months while the plans are reviewed with Cerberus representatives, including former Chrysler executive Wolfgang Bernhard, two people familiar with the matter said.

"This is exactly what Daimler did when they took over Chrysler, and Cerberus is going to do the same," a person briefed on the Imperial decision said.

Chrysler spokesman Elshoff said he could not comment, but he said the company has committed to improving fuel economy across its line-up.

Erich Merkle, an analyst at IRN Inc., said he expects that Chrysler under Cerberus will opt to retain rear-wheel drive vehicles, a performance-ready configuration shared by the 300C and upcoming Dodge Challenger.

But he said the new Chrysler could press to incorporate technologies such as cylinder deactivation and direct injection to boost fuel economy of future models. "You don't have to kill rear-wheel drive in order to keep fuel efficiency," he said.

Chrysler, which competes with U.S. automakers like General Motors and Ford Motor Company, relies on sales of trucks and SUVs, such as the Dodge Durango SUV and RAM pickup truck, for almost 70 percent of its total sales at a time when U.S. consumers are increasingly demanding lighter and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Chrysler, which does not expect to return to profitability before 2008, is investing $3 billion in new plants in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Mexico intended to produce a family of more fuel-efficient V-6 engines and components.
(C)Reuters

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Preview

For the first time, the Jeep Grand Cherokee will have the optional 3.0-liter diesel engine, which Chrysler says can improve fuel economy by as much as 30 percent.

The 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee comes with an all-new, 4.7-liter V8 engine, rated at 305 hp and 330 pound-feet of torque, among its five available engine choices. Others include a 3.0-liter diesel; a 3.7-liter V6; a 5.7-liter heavy V8; and for the high-performance Grand Cherokee SRT8, a 420-hp 6.1-liter V8.

Chrysler says the new 4.7-liter engine will boast a 5 percent improvement in fuel economy and is E85 flex-fuel capable (E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline).

For the first time, Grand Cherokee models will have the optional 3.0-liter diesel, which Chrysler says can improve fuel economy by as much as 30 percent and provide a driving range of approximately 450 miles with towing capability of up to 7,400 pounds.

Interior changes include a new center console, armrests, two-tone instrument panel and bright accents with soft-touch surfaces and updated styling.

“Sirius Backseat TV,” the first-ever in-vehicle streaming video technology, will be launched as an available feature on the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chrysler minivans. The technology will also become available on 2008 Jeep Commanders, the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Chargers and Magnums. Exterior styling for the Grand Cherokee is unchanged for 2008.
(C)Forbes, Shane Kite

Luxury brands top best-liked cars list

Porsche tops the list, while Toyota's inexpensive Scion is the best-liked non-luxury car in survey.

People who pay more to buy an expensive luxury car really do like their cars better, according to a new ranking from J.D. Power and Associates.

The top 11 brands in the J.D. Power and Associates "Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout" (APEAL) survey are all high-priced luxury brands. The top performing non-luxury brand, Toyota Motor Company's Scion, finished 12th in the rankings. The poll ranked a total to 35 brands.

Porsche was the top ranked car brand, while BMW was second, followed by Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar and Lexus.

Car owners were surveyed during the first 90 days of ownership to see how well they liked their new cars. Only 2007 model year cars were included.

All three of DiamlerChrysler's U.S. based Chrysler Group brands finished in the bottom five. Jeep was the lowest-ranked brand of all, Dodge third-lowest and Chrysler fifth-lowest.

Japanese brands Subaru and Suzuki rounded out the bottom five.

Out of a possible 1,000 points, scores ranged from 849 for Porsche to 718 for Jeep. The average score for an overall car brand was 772.

While that range may seem small, it shows a big difference in statistical and practical terms, said Joe Ivers, executive director for J.D. Power.

"It translates to a huge difference in the range of delight, or, in this case, misery for Jeep customers," he said.

It also translates into negative word of mouth and lost sales, he said.

Of U.S.-base brands, only General Motors' Cadillac and Hummer brands, as well as Ford's Lincoln brand scored above average overall. (Several individual models from the Detroit brands finished at the top of their respective categories, however.)

In addition to ranking automotive brands, the J.D. Power survey also ranked individual vehicle models within their respective car classes

Honda had the most individual models finishing at the top of their respective categories. The Honda Fit tied with Toyota's Yaris for top compact car, while the Honda CR-V was the top compact SUV, the Honda Ridgeline was the top pickup, and Honda's Odyssey ranked as the best minivan.

Recently introduced or redesigned models tended to perform best in the survey. Cars that score high on J.D. Power's APEAL survey also tend to be more profitable, J.D. Power said in the announcement, since they require fewer incentives to sell.

"Whether due to fresh designs or innovative features, APEAL scores tend to be highest for models when they are first introduced," said Neal Oddes, director of product research and analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. "It's essential for manufacturers to get new-vehicle launches right, since vehicles with high appeal scores generally command a higher gross profit and sell more quickly."

Top scoring car models:

Subcompact car: Honda Fit/Toyota Yaris
Compact car: Volkswagen Jetta
Compact sporty car: Volkswagen Jetta
Compact premium sporty car: Porsche Cayman
Entry premium car: BMW 3-series
Midsized premium car: Mercedes-Benz E-class
Large premium car: Mercedes-Benz S-class
Premium sporty car: BMW 6-series
Midsize sporty car: Ford Mustang
Midsize car: Nissan Altima sedan
Large car: Hyundai Azera
Compact SUV: Honda CR-V
Midsize SUV: Ford Edge
Large SUV: Nissan Armada
Midsize premium SUV: BMW X5
Large premium SUV: Cadillac Escalade EXT/Mercedes-Benz GL-class
Large pickup: GMC Sierra
Midsize pickup: Honda Ridgeline
Van: Honda Odyssey
(C)CNN

New Toyota incentives on Tundra pickups

Toyota Motor Corp. , coming off its most successful sales month in the U.S., said Friday that it is offering another round of incentives on its full-size Tundra pickup trucks.

The incentives offered through July 31 include a choice of zero-percent financing for five years, rebates of up to $3,500, or reductions of $500 on down payments on three-year leases. The monthly payment on the leases remains $259, but the down payment drops to $2,499 from $2,999.

Japan's Toyota passed Ford Motor Co. for the No. 2 sales spot in the U.S. in May, when its sales increased 9.7 percent over year-earlier levels. General Motors Corp. remains No. 1.

Tundra sales in May totaled 17,727, up 114 percent from April. Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong said the incentive program was launched in response to intense competition in the full-size pickup segment. Overall sales of full-size pickups are down 5.5 percent so far this year.

This is the second round of Tundra incentives in 2007. In February, Toyota offered low-rate financing and lease deals and a program that provided dealers with three $250 coupons for every regular cab truck in stock. Dealers could apply the coupons in any combination.

In January, Toyota announced a 2007 goal of selling 200,000 Tundras -- assembled in Texas and Indiana with more than 75 percent U.S. parts -- after selling 124,500 in 2006. The Tundra is vying for a share of the market long dominated by Ford's F-Series pickup, GM's Chevrolet Silverado and DaimlerChrysler AG's Dodge Ram.

Toyota's reported $100 million marketing push included two Super Bowl ads and a test-drive campaign with 400 events at state fairs and agricultural shows, among other venues.

Toyota also is going after the Hispanic market with custom-made commercials as well as a dedicated Web site and brochure. Its goal is to sell about 20 percent of the new Tundras to Hispanic consumers.
(C)Associated Press

TOP-35 The Best Quality Automakers

The Initial Quality Study serves as the industry benchmark for new-vehicle quality measured at 90 days of ownership and captures problems experienced by owners in two distinct categories — quality of design and quality of production (defects and malfunctions). Over the past 20 years, the automotive industry has improved in quality at the rate of 6 percent per year on average — a 20-year improvement rate of more than 120 percent. In addition, the study has found that the automotive industry has reduced problem counts by 50 percent every 7 to 8 years. The first subcolumn is Mechanical score, second is Design score.

Company	Total	Overall		Powertrain		Body&Interior		Features&Accesories
Porsche	35	4	5	3	5	4	4	5	5
Lexus	34	5	4	5	4	5	3	5	3
Jaguar	32	3	5	4	5	3	5	2	5
Lincoln	31	4	4	5	4	4	3	3	4
Honda	29	4	3	3	3	4	4	5	3
Toyota	29	4	3	3	3	4	4	5	3
Infinity	28	4	3	5	3	4	4	2	3
Mercedes	27	4	3	3	4	5	3	3	2
Mercury	27	4	3	4	4	3	3	3	3
Buick	26	4	3	4	4	3	2	3	3
Scion	26	3	4	2	3	3	4	3	4
Volvo	26	3	3	4	3	4	4	2	3
Acura	25	3	3	4	3	3	4	3	2
Ford	25	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	4
GMC	25	3	4	3	3	2	3	3	4
Chevrolet	24	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Hyundai	24	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Kia	24	3	3	2	3	4	3	3	3
SAAB	24	3	3	3	4	3	2	3	3
BMW	23	4	2	3	3	4	2	3	2
Cadillac	23	3	3	4	4	2	2	2	3
Nissan	23	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	3
Pontiac	23	3	3	3	4	2	2	3	3
Saturn	23	3	3	3	4	2	2	3	3
Hummer	22	3	2	3	3	2	4	3	2
Subaru	22	3	2	3	3	3	2	3	3
Audi	21	3	2	2	3	4	3	2	2
Land Rover	21	2	2	3	4	3	3	2	2
Mazda	20	2	2	2	2	3	3	3	3
Mitsubishi	20	2	3	2	3	2	3	2	3
Suzuki	20	2	3	2	2	3	3	2	3
Volkswagen	20	2	2	3	3	2	4	2	2
Chrysler	19	2	2	2	2	3	3	3	2
Dodge	19	2	3	2	2	2	2	3	3
Jeep	19	2	2	3	3	2	2	2	3

Total = the bigger is the better
5 - Among the best, 4 - Better than most, 3 - About average, 2 - The rest

Overall Quality: this score is based on problems that have caused a complete breakdown or malfunction, or where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand.

Overall Quality - Mechanical: this score is based on problems that have caused a complete breakdown or malfunction of any component, feature, or item (i.e., components that stop working or trim pieces that break or come loose).
Overall Quality - Design: this score is based on problems where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due to poor location).

Powertrain Quality - Mechanical: this score is based on problems with the engine or transmission as well as problems that affect the driving experience (i.e., vehicle/brakes pull, abnormal noises or vibrations) only.
Powertrain Quality - Design: this score is based on problems with the engine or transmission as well as problems that affect the driving experience (i.e., ride smoothness, responsiveness of the steering system and brakes, and handling/stability).

Body & Interior Quality - Mechanical: this score is based on problems with wind noise, water leaks, poor interior fit/finish, paint imperfection, and squeaks/rattles.
Body & Interior Quality - Design: this score is based on problems with the front-/rear-end styling, the appearance of the interior and exterior, and the sound of the doors when closing.

Features & Accessories Quality - Mechanical: this score is based on problems with the seats, windshield wipers, navigation system, rear-seat entertainment system, heater, air conditioner, stereo system, sunroof and trip computer.
Features & Accessories Quality - Design: this score is based on problems with the seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and sunroof.
(C) J.D. Power and Associates

Why we need big hybrid SUVs

Think a GMC Yukon Hybrid sounds silly? It can save more gas than a Civic Hybrid.

Outrage. Disbelief. Downright disgust. Those were readers' reactions to our recent story about "Top 13 fuel-efficient cars", which featured several trucks and SUVs.

Many of the emails went something likes this: "Did you sell your soul to Detroit? Since when is 16/24 'great' fuel-efficiency?"

Actually, 16 miles per gallon in city driving and 24 on the highway is really good for a large SUV. That's what the GMC Acadia gets.

Compare that to another big General Motors SUV, the GMC Yukon, which has similar interior space. The Yukon gets 14 miles per gallon in the city and 19 on the highway.

Yes, I know. That's a difference of only 2 miles per gallon in city driving. In overall driving - city and highway combined - the difference between the Acadia and the Yukon is 3 miles per gallon, according to EPA estimates.

Whoop-dee-doo?

Look at it this way, though. Over 15,000 miles - about a year's worth of driving - someone who drives the Acadia will use 148 fewer gallons of gas than someone who drives a Yukon. (By the way, all the EPA estimates used in this article are based on new testing procedures that result in lower, but more realistic, mileage figures for all vehicles.)

Now let's look at another car on the list, the Nissan Altima Hybrid. It gets 34 miles per gallon overall compared to 26 miles per gallon for the similar non-hybrid Altima. That's a difference of 12 miles per gallon.

But someone who decides to buy the Altima Hybrid instead of a regular Altima will save just 136 gallons of gas a year. That's still a lot, but not as big of a difference as a mere 3 mpg improvement in a large SUV.

Vehicles like DaimlerChrysler's Dodge Durango Hybrid and GMC's Yukon Hybrid, both due out later this year, are expected to make an even bigger difference. (We got to read lots of angry email when we wrote about the Durango Hybrid: "You folks are either morons or fools to run an article on a hybrid engine that only gets 25 mpg. What kind of reefer are you clowns smoking?")

I'm not trying to hide from the obvious here. Someone who switches from a non-hybrid GMC Yukon to a Toyota Prius will save about 611 gallons of gas a year. That switch would make a huge difference.

But how many people do you think could actually do that?

That assumes that all consumers are able to buy the smallest possible vehicle and that no one who drives a large SUV or other full-sized vehicle actually needs one.

Even as consumers have been ditching mid-sized SUVs for smaller SUVs and cars amid rising gas prices, sales of large SUVs have stayed relatively flat. That indicates that these buyers can't easily switch.

I didn't have to go very far to find a perfect test case: my sister. She lives in Cape Cod, Mass., where it snows heavily in the winter. She has three boys who all play hockey, a dog and a husband; and she usually has a couple of her kids' friends - and their hockey equipment - tagging along wherever they go.

Try fitting that life into a Prius. My sister drives a GMC Yukon XL not because she thinks it's cool but because it does what she needs her vehicle to do even when there's a foot-and-a-half of snow on the ground.

The gas mileage, on the other hand, she's not so crazy about.

But when she goes to trade in that vehicle she might be able to get a Yukon XL Hybrid. GM estimates it should get about 20 miles per gallon overall. That means it would use 237 fewer gallons of gas a year than the Yukon XL she drives now.

That's a lot of gas. And, if that hybrid Yukon XL isn't available, you think she'll buy a Honda Civic? No. More likely, she'll buy another Yukon, a non-hybrid one. That would be another 237 gallons of gas per year not saved.

Drawing a big circle around one number - say 35 miles per gallon - and saying "a vehicle isn't fuel efficient unless it gets 35 miles per gallon" is silly, simplistic and pointless. It's counterproductive because it keeps car companies focused on saving fuel where the savings are needed least. The best way to an get eye-popping miles-per-gallon number is by piling advanced hybrid technology into an already-efficient small car. It gets headlines, but it limits the real impact of the technology.

Car companies such as General Motors, which sells 70 percent of all large SUVs, and Chrysler are doing the right thing by putting their best fuel economy technology where it's actually going to do the most good: in vehicles that really need the help.
(C)CNN