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

Lexus LS 600h: Conspicuous Consumption With Green Illusions

Lexus's 2.5-ton flagship moves on hybrid power.

In “North Dallas Forty,” the shaggy 1979 gridiron film starring Nick Nolte, a lineman played by John Matuszak ranted memorably to a coach about the hypocrisy of pro football: “Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game.”

Toyota and Lexus would disagree, but their recent hybrid models, including the Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX 400h utility wagons, the Lexus GS 450h sedan and now the Lexus LS 600h L, similarly seem to be trying to have it both ways.

In recent advertisements, including one in the “green issue” of Vanity Fair, Lexus uses one hand to present the 400-plus horsepower of the LS 600h L and the other to pat its own back for saving fuel and planet alike.

The ads and the cars have convinced many, including some credulous journalists, of Lexus’s pitch: that a hybrid car or S.U.V. can drive like a Porsche and sip fuel like a Prius. But a closer examination proves once again that there’s no free lunch, even at the drive-through.

For more than a year, Lexus has suggested that the LS 600h L — as tested, a $121,000 hybrid version of its LS 460 L flagship sedan — would set a new standard for four-door luxury automobiles. Its pitch was that the car would perform like a V-12 supersedan while whipping V-8 rivals on fuel economy. Instead, the hybrid may have set a new standard for automotive hyperbole.

Behind its green Teflon shield, the Lexus proved to be just another overstuffed sedan that can barely top 20 miles a gallon — less, if you actually tap into all that power. If that’s saving the planet, Jor-El had better prepare the escape pod before it’s too late.

Before the enviro-brigade readies the guillotine, I hasten to add that this isn’t about hating hybrids. Electric propulsion is looking more and more like a winning technology. Companies from Toyota to General Motors are working to develop affordable lithium-ion batteries, which could deliver clean, efficient, renewable power in plug-in hybrids or purely electric vehicles.

I can’t believe that adding a cupful of electric juice to a fat barrel of V-8 muscle is what environmentalists have in mind.

On the performance front, forget about the Lexus hanging with V-12 sedans like the Mercedes S600. Turns out that the Lexus can’t even outrun its own nonhybrid version, the LS 460 L. Nor is it appreciably quicker than V-8 competitors that cost $20,000 to $30,000 less, like the Mercedes S550, the Audi A8 and the BMW 7 Series, or the similarly priced Maserati Quattroporte.

It must be noted that such decadent sedans are about more than straight-line speed. Park those high-wattage rivals beside the Lexus, and the modestly styled LS virtually disappears; challenge them on a twisty road and they all disappear from the Lexus by virtue of their sportier handling.

Spurred from a stop to 60 miles an hour, the LS 600h L clocks a swift 5.5 seconds, according to Lexus’s own testing. Yet the gas-only LS 460 L, with a mere 380 horsepower from a smaller V-8, reaches 60 in 5.4 seconds, nosing out the more powerful hybrid.

How is that possible? Check the scales, where the Lexus hybrid weighs in like Jared before his Subway diet.

The hybrid does add all-wheel drive, not available on the LS 460 L. But together, the heavy batteries and all-wheel-drive system burden the hybrid with more than 700 additional pounds, for a total of 5,049. Forced to motivate the added weight, the hybrid’s larger 5-liter V-8 — another environmental oxymoron — and dual electric motors makes acceleration a wash. (One motor drives the four wheels. The other starts the gas engine and recharges the batteries.)

Excess weight takes its toll on mileage as well. The hybrid got 21 m.p.g. — amazingly, 1 m.p.g. less than the nonhybrid version that I tested on the same urban roads and highways in and around New York City. That perfectly wonderful LS 460 L is blessed with one of the most fuel-efficient V-8s I’ve driven, a 4.6-liter smoothie.

But the Lexus hybrid’s biggest jolt comes from sticker shock: the LS 600h L starts at $104,715, about $32,000 above the LS 460 L. Laden with options for $121,000, the hybrid costs about $30,000 more than the comparable gas-only version.

Driven gently, the Lexus will indeed beat the mileage of its apples-to-apples V-8 rivals, but only by 1 m.p.g. to 3 m.p.g. A Mercedes S550 isn’t an egregious guzzler at an E.P.A.-rated 16/24 m.p.g., and I managed 19 m.p.g. during a recent test. And when I drove the Lexus in mildly spirited fashion, its mileage dropped to 19 m.p.g. It’s hard to see why such minuscule mileage gains would dazzle the type of person who’s ready to drop $100,000 on a car.

The E.P.A. rates the hybrid’s mileage at 20 m.p.g. in town and 22 on the highway. The nonhybrid is rated 16/24 under the same revised formula, which takes effect for 2008 and is intended to present lower, more realistic mileage estimates for most cars.

In its defense, the hybrid should save you a few bucks if you do a lot of city driving. But on the highway, the gas-only model was decidedly more efficient, and thus ended up doing 1 m.p.g. better over all. And in bumper-to-bumper traffic, where you expect a hybrid to excel, the LS 600h L mustered only 14 m.p.g., certainly nothing to marvel at.

The uneasy comparisons don’t end there. The gas-only version handled better and drove more smoothly.

The nonhybrid benefits from the world’s first eight-speed automatic transmission, which lifts mileage and operates with hushed aplomb. The hybrid’s continuously variable transmission, in contrast, has to busily calculate and divvy power from the gas and electric sources. It’s among the most seamless of its kind, but not as smooth or transparent as the Lexus eight-speed. And its manual-shift function is nearly useless. In trying to mimic the feel of sporty downshifts, it ladles on ever-higher levels of regenerative hybrid braking. To the driver, the sludgy effect feels like throwing anchors of various sizes out the window.

Lexus’s hybrid double-talk extends to emissions arguments. When the company says the Lexus hybrid is cleaner than average cars, people will assume that has something to do with global warming. But in this instance, that is not the case.

To its credit, the car’s super-ultra-low emissions vehicle rating (SULEV, if you will) is indeed cleaner than other V-8 models, but only if you are measuring the pollutants that form smog. (Even on the smog index, many gasoline models also achieve SULEV ratings or better).

But the critical earth issue today is conserving fuel and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Those greenhouse gas levels are almost entirely a function of fuel economy: if you use more gas, you spew more carbon dioxide. So on that score, the 21 m.p.g. hybrid actually emits far more carbon dioxide than, say, a Mercedes-Benz diesel E-Class that can attain 30 m.p.g.

The LS 600h L also emits more greenhouse gases than the average new car that currently achieves 27.5 m.p.g. So a common Toyota Camry, among dozens of models, leaves a smaller carbon footprint than this hybrid land yacht.

One final ignominy: given the hybrid batteries and a separate air-conditioner for the back seat, the hybrid’s trunk measures a meager 11.7 cubic feet, smaller than that of a Kia Rio or other compact sedan. (Skip the rear air-conditioning in a Lexus LS 460 L, and you’ll enjoy a 50 percent larger trunk, at 18 cubic feet).

Jim Farley, general manager of Lexus, defended the car’s performance and green credentials. “If Lexus had to have a flagship, this is how it should be,” he said. “It’s the progressive person’s alternative. Hybrids are a huge platform for us at Lexus, and they’re only going to get bigger.”

Certainly, this hybrid Lexus is one of the quietest, most comfortable, best-built sedans around. It has every imaginable safety system and creature comfort. The navigation system is first-rate. The Mark Levinson audio system is amazing. And the optional ($12,675) Executive Package is the hands-down — or feet-up? — coolest feature. It includes rear seats that recline, heat and cool, along with a right-hand chair with a steeper recline, massage functions and a powered ottoman for the full mini-Maybach effect.

Yet every compliment you can lavish on this impressive ride, minus the all-wheel drive, applies equally to the nonhybrid version.

So why would anyone spend an extra $30,000 for this car? Certainly, the performance gains of 12-cylinder sedans aren’t always justified by their enormous premiums. Many people buy them for that V-12 badge on the fender, the exclusive message it sends. Ditto for the Lexus, but the roughly 2,000 people who’ll line up for the hybrid won’t be broadcasting their superior power, but their superior morals, however illusory.

If that’s not you, stick with the Lexus LS 460 L. Enjoy a back-seat massage and relax. You’ll know that you’ve got the better car — one that’s equally fast and frugal, but also weighs less and handles better.

You can actually park that terrific gas-only Lexus in the garage and have $30,000 to buy a Prius hybrid, with cash left over. Save the LS for special occasions and run errands in the Toyota at more than double the mileage. While Lexus plays the hybrid game, it’s the Prius that takes care of business.
(C)NYT

Low-Cost Chinese Cars Making Restrained Entry to European Market

After a rocky start, Peter Bijvelds has hopes for the Landwind autos he imports, saying Chinese cars offer European buyers the value they seek.

They have names like the Brilliance BS6, the Landwind Fashion or the improbable Hover Wingle, and though these sedans, vans and sport utility vehicles are hardly as familiar to Europeans as, say, a Volkswagen Golf, they are beginning to show up on European roads.

“I’ve got air-conditioning, ABS brakes and air bags,” said Carlo Scalvini, describing his Hover, a big and boxy sport utility vehicle built by the Great Wall Motor Company, with headquarters in Baoding in eastern China. “And the price is competitive: you pay 10,000 euros less in the end,” more than $13,000.

The enthusiasm of people like Mr. Scalvini could influence the global auto industry and China’s place in it. China’s quiet inroads into Europe are the first test of rich markets by Chinese automakers as they build dealer networks and deliver small shipments of cars to test the reaction of drivers and auto industry experts.

Many of the dealers who have signed on with the Chinese previously worked with the Japanese and the South Koreans, and so have experience in coaxing Europeans to purchase cars with unfamiliar names and unusual looks, but sweet prices.

If business is starting fitfully, they foresee healthy profits down the road, aided by the weak dollar. European car dealers pay in dollars for the Chinese cars, yet are paid in strong euros when they resell them, pocketing nifty profits from exchange rates.

“The game the Japanese mastered in 15 years, and the Koreans in 10,” said Nigel Griffiths, director of European light vehicle forecasting at Global Insight, “they will do in 18 months to 5 years.”

Paradoxically, the Chinese have been helped in Europe by their alliances with Western automakers in China. Some of the Chinese cars being imported into European countries use electrical components from Bosch, the big German parts supplier, or have been designed by Italian firms like Giugiaro. Now, the Europeans are seeing their ideas and components flow back into their own markets.

That the European market is essentially open is also helping the Chinese. Because so many European cars are now being built elsewhere, a quota on imports is politically almost impossible.

There have been setbacks, like abysmal results on a crash test done on a Chinese car two years ago. Some specialists are skeptical that the Chinese can become major competitors in Europe and the United States. After all, car buying remains an emotional business. “There is a general lack of brand awareness, and distribution is a hurdle,” said Michael K. McKenzie, a China expert at PricewaterhouseCoopers’ automotive institute in Detroit.

But the Japanese and South Koreans overcame similar hurdles. Moreover, the Chinese are moving in several stages. “They are coming through the back door: first Russia, then working their way west,” Mr. Griffiths of Global Insight said. He estimates that China will sell 54,000 cars in Russia this year, out of a total market of two million, compared with 31,000 last year.

The Chinese are arriving even as European carmakers struggle with flat prices and diminishing profit, and the Chinese presence is expected to ratchet up the pressure. That will force some European companies that stayed in the mass market for small cars, like Fiat, either to move up to larger, more expensive models, or to perish, Mr. McKenzie predicted. “They will undercut these companies, and the market will be more contested,” he said.

It began when a Dutch Nissan dealer, Peter Bijvelds, visited China with a friend in 2004 to inspect the Landwind factory in Nanchang, a gritty city south of the Yangtze River in Jiangxi Province. The trip ended with Mr. Bijvelds’ introducing a big and boxy Chinese-made S.U.V., the Landwind New Vision, a twin of G.M.’s Opel Frontera, at the 2005 Frankfurt auto show. It did not handle like a European car and its engine had little excess power, but for Europeans tired of station wagons or wanting to tow a trailer, this car cost 25 percent less than a Kia or a Hyundai model. It had air-conditioning, air bags and aluminum wheels. In the first two weeks, Mr. Bijvelds said, he sold 500 of them.

Then, at about the time of the Frankfurt show, the German automobile club, known as ADAC, put the New Vision to a crash test. The driver’s survival chances were about nil, the club’s testers said.

Mr. Bijvelds’ Chinese partners were dismayed. The New Vision was put aside while Landwind ironed out the kinks. A successor model, the Landwind Expedition, has a comely design by an Italian design studio, a German-built engine and all European safety features.

Mr. Bijvelds suggested that the automobile club might have been prompted by German automakers to undermine his project. A club spokesman, Maximilian Maurer, denied that. “I am sure that in time the Chinese will succeed here,” he said, “and the ADAC doesn’t want to keep them away. We simply want to inform consumers about the quality of these cars.”

Mr. Bijvelds, 28, receiving a visitor at the headquarters of his Landwind Motor Corporation near Antwerp, Belgium, said, “We get so many products from China with Western brands, why not cars?” Europeans, he says, are after value, citing Renault’s recent bonanza with the Logan, a car built in Romania that has a six-month waiting time for delivery in Belgium. “They want a lot of car for a little money,” he said.

The German crash test, a colleague told him recently, may have been a blessing in disguise. “Now everybody knows you,” the friend said, “For good or bad, they know you.”‘

In Germany, Hans-Ulrich Sachs, a former Volkswagen executive who is chairman of HSO Motors Europe, is signing on dealers to sell the Brilliance BS6, a comfortable sedan with a vague resemblance to a midsize BMW. Indeed, Brilliance assembles BMW’s 3 and 5 series cars for the domestic Chinese market.

By the end of this year, Mr. Sachs, 54, wants 150 showrooms in Germany, and by next year, 1,100 throughout Europe. This year, he hopes to sell 6,000 to 7,000 cars. The first 500 arrived in mid-March.

Why would a German buy a Chinese car? he asked rhetorically. “Value for the money.”

For Europe’s carmakers, alliances with Chinese companies could become two-edged affairs, providing models that one day may well compete against their own cars. Volkswagen, for instance, has joint ventures with Shanghai Automotive and First Auto Works. Yet Kai Grüber, spokesman for the Volkswagen Group China, played down the potential for competition, saying that VW focused for now on the domestic Chinese market. “Future exports into the Southeast Asian area are conceivable in markets where we can expand our offering with new models,” he said.

At Eurasia Motor here in Palazzolo, about 35 miles northeast of Milan, where Mr. Scalvini bought his S.U.V., a shipment of 360 arrived in November, and have all been sold through a network of 95 Italian dealers. “We’re now expecting 800 more — in lots of 200 each — of the same model,” said Federico Daffi, Eurasia’s chief financial officer. Eurasia pays Great Wall $14,000 for the S.U.V.’s, and sells them for as little as 19,600 euros (about $27,000), still one-fourth below the South Korean competition. Eurasia then uses the lower price to market to middle-class families who until now could not afford an S.U.V.

Mr. Scalvini, 44, would buy more Hovers now, if they were available. He is the owner of Consorzio Vela, a company that employs about 800 people and maintains a large fleet of vehicles supplying services like delivery and catering to other Italian companies. The Hover’s Mitsubishi-built engine is fuel efficient and will offer the option of shifting from gasoline to liquid propane gas in future models.

“I’m convinced it will be a winner,” he said.
(C)NYT

Safiest cars

These cars earned the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick award.

That means they earned the best possible ratings front, side and rear impact protection and they are available with electronic stability control.

Acura MDX
The MDX is a midsized SUV with a third row of seats in the back, but it feels stable and handles surprisingly well for a vehicle of its size.








Acura RDX
The Acura RDX shares some of its basic engineering with the Honda CR-V, which was also awarded a Top Safety Pick award by the Insurance Institute. As with all Honda SUVs, electronic stability control, which helps prevent vehicles from going out of control or flipping over in emergency maneuvers, comes as standard equipment on the RDX.





Audi A4
The A4 was close to making the cut last year, but it was hampered by a merely "Acceptable" performance in whiplash protection. With improvements to the Audi's seats, the A4 and larger A6 earned the Insurance Institute's Top Safety Pick award.






Audi A6
The A6 was close to making the cut last year, but it was hampered by a merely "Acceptable" performance in whiplash protection. With improvements to the Audi's seats, the A6 and smaller A4 earned the Insurance Institute's Top Safety Pick award.






Ford Edge
The Edge, a car-based crossover, is targeted at young, urban couples or small families looking for something more versatile than a car but more stylish than the typical SUV.








Ford Taurus
The Ford Five Hundred had been a Top Safety Pick before the Insurance Institute added a requirement that vehicles must be available with electronic stability control to get the awards.
Slightly redesigned for 2008 and renamed the Taurus, this car is now available with stability control so it has been returned to the list.

Ford Taurus X
The Taurus X, formerly known as the Freestyle, is an SUV-like wagon that shares most of its engineering wth the Ford Taurus sedan. The Taurus X has three rows of seats.








Honda CR-V
The CR-V shares some of its basic engineering with the Honda Civic. That car was dropped from the Insurance Institute's Top Picks list, however, because of a new requirement that all vehicles on the list must offer electronic stability control.






Honda Pilot
The mid-sized Honda Pilot has been one of the most popular crossover SUVs around since its introduction in 2002. Like all Honda SUVs, it comes standard with electronic stability control.







Hyundai Entourage
The Entourage is Hyundai's new minivan. The Kia Sedona is essentially the same vehicle with relatively minor differences. The Sedona has a smooth and quiet ride, comfortable interior and solid build quality, according to Edmunds.com.







Hyundai Santa Fe
The Santa Fe was completely redesigned for the 2007model year. Like all Hyunda vehicles it has electronic stability control as standard equipment.








Kia Sedona
The Sedona is Kia's new minivan. The Hyundai Entourage is essentially the same vehicle with relatively minor differences. The Sedona has a smooth and quiet ride, comfortable interior and solid build quality, according to Edmunds.com.







Lincoln MKX
The MKX is Lincoln's luxury version of the Ford Edge. In addition to a different look, the MKX's ride and handling are slightly different from the Edge's as well.

Saab 9-3
The 9-3 offers excellent handling and performance for a front-wheel drive car. Evidently, it offers class-leading safety, as well.

Saab 9-3 convertible
The 9-3 was one of two convertibles, both made by Swedish car companies owned by one of the major Detroit automakers, to earn a Best Pick. Saab is part of General Motors.
To earn a "Top Safety Pick" designation, a vehicle must get top scores in all impact tests and it must be available with electronic stability control.

The 9-3 has automatic rollbars that deploy in the event of a rollover.

Mercedes-Benz M-class
With its car-like engineering, the M-class is, technically speaking, a crossover vehicle. It handles well and, according to the Insurance Institute's tests, offers excellent protection in the event of a wreck.







Mercury Sable
The Mercury Montego had been a Top Safety Pick before the Insurance Institute added a requirement that vehicles must be available with electronic stability control to get the awards.
Slightly redesigned for 2008 and renamed the Sable, this car is now available with stability control so it has been returned to the list

Subaru B9 Tribeca
Its peculiar design may not suit your tastes, but the Tribeca does perform very well in crash tests. Electronic stability control comes as standard equipment.

Subaru Forester
To make the Top Picks list for 2007, the Insurance Institute required vehicles to have electronic stability control available as, at least, an option. The Subaru Forester and Legacy are the only vehicles on the list that do not have it as standard equipment. For the Forester, stability control is available only on the Sports 2.5 XT version.





Subaru Legacy
The Legacy is Subaru's midsized answer to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. Aside from its strong performance in the Insurance Institute's very demanding crash tests, the Legacy also offers all-wheel-drive. That's something you won't find in any Camry.






Volvo XC90
Volvo's reputation has been built on safety, so Volvo's absence from last year's Insurance Institute Top Safety Pick list was surprising to many consumers. The fact is, however, that many companies now make very safe cars, not just Volvo. Ford's Swedish luxury brand makes the cut this year with its XC90 SUV.





Volvo C70
The C70 is a hard-top convertible made by Ford-owned Volvo of Sweden.
A hard convertible top, like the one on the C70, cannot support weight and does not offer any safety benefit as compared to a cloth top. The C70 has automatic rollbars that deploy in the event of rollover.
(C)CNN

Review: Chery QQ

The China-built Chery QQ scores big on cute appeal, but what lurks under its skin offers a different story.

What's New
This is the first appearance in the local market from Chery Automobile, which was formed in 1997 as an auto manufacturer owned by the Wuhu province government in China, although is about to be privatised.
The pint-sized three cylinder 812cc Chery QQ has been in production since 2003 in China, along with a 1.1-litre version.

The QQ has immediately cemented its reputation as the most affordable new car in China with a price tag of ~$2,400. Its immediate competitors are the 1.0-litre Perodua Kelisa and the 1.1-litre Kia Picanto.


How it Performs
In bright livery the QQ looks as cute as you could wish for with its oval little headlights and smiling grille, but on closer inspection the body panels don't seem so well aligned. There's a flimsy feel to the bonnet when slamming it down and we wouldn't advise leaning on it in case you leave a permanent indentation on it.

The interior is naturally built to a price in terms of the plastics, but certainly looks cheery enough with chrome effect instrument dials. The material seats that fold flat to the rear are initially comfy but have a tendency to sag in after a while and you soon lose the cushioning on your spine and bottom.

The engine is vocal on heavy acceleration, but levelling off at 90kmh in 5th gear it offers pretty good cruising ability - the engine note flattens and surrounding wind roar is also surprisingly well damped for such a small car.

The five-speed manual box could be a chore for those used to sweeter units though; there's a long through to the lever and engagement is rather rubbery in feel. The steering feels extremely light and very fast - almost flighty - but on a set of bendy roads, as we discovered on Sentosa, it can be guided around with pinpoint accuracy. However, once a few bumps are thrown in, the QQ's chassis can get very bouncy and then the steering control evaporates.

Unfortunately it was also on this Sentosa route that the dreaded smell of fried clutch plates reached the nostrils. The car had to be parked up for a few minutes before the drivetrain would engage again. Not acceptable on a new car. Vertex Automobile, which sells the Chery brand here, would like to point out that the Chery QQ was in the top three vehicles of the Compact Car Segment of the J.D Power Asia Pacific 2004 China Initial Quality Study. Perhaps the newly formed Chinese middle class are not used to complaining that much.

How it Stacks Up
For its price the QQ is well equipped with one-touch power windows that close globally, power steering, power mirrors, rev counter, remote central locking, a CD and MP3 player, plus front and rear fog lights. But we wonder how well the QQ will fair after a year or so of daily driving? You can't ignore the lure of the opposition for just $3,000 more. Both the Kelisa and the Picanto offer a more planted small car driving experience and a good level of build quality for not an awful lot more. Cheapness is not always a virtue if the entire package is compromised. In the Chery QQ brochure there is, worryingly, a picture of a man standing in the pouring rain with the Chery sitting motionless behind him. We know how he feels. Perhaps QQ is an acronym for Questionable Quality.

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

Kia Spectra. Fun out of there.

How to choose your FIRST CAR? Top 10 first cars

If you're looking for a midsized sedan:
Ford Fusion

Base prices: $17,400, with I-4, to $24,000 with V6

Engine and transmission: 160 horsepower, 2.3-liter, 4-cylinder engine with 5-speed automatic or manual transmission or 221 horsepower, 3.0-liter V-6 with 6-speed automatic. All-wheel-drive available.

Fuel economy: 23 city, 31 highway, 26 combined with 4-cylinder (manual or automatic); 20/28/23 with V6

A good, reliable midsized sedan, the Fusion offers more driving enjoyment than a Camry with ample trunk space, comfortable seating for four (you can fit five) and stylish looks.

Consumer Reports says the V6 Fusion is actually more trouble-free than V6 Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.

With contrasting stitching on its optional leather seats, the Fusion even looks good from the inside. If you need to haul long items, you can fold down the back seats right from the trunk leaving a big pass-through straight into the interior.

If you're