Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: Head Protection
From: Michael

I've been wanting to purchase a BMW 5 Series wagon since 2002. However, in 2002 there was no rear passenger head protection system in the wagon. I started looking again recently after reading Edmunds' "Editors' Review" in which it says under "What's New for 2003," "Besides that, rear head protection airbags (optional last year) are now standard across the line." Under "Safety" it says, "Safety feature highlights include antilock brakes, a stability control system, dynamic brake control, front side-impact airbags and head protection airbags for front and rear occupants." For whatever reason (and none of the salespeople at BMW seem to have an adequate explanation as to why the sedans have it but not the wagon), BMW has not put a head protection system in the rear (even if you order the optional rear side airbags). Also, none of the salespeople have any idea as to whether the rear head protection system will be added to the new version of the 5 Series wagon. Do you know? If so, please let me know.

Also, can you tell me if there is any safety reason for not having a rear head protection system (like it's not good if kids are in the backseat)? I really like the 2003 525 Wagon and the prices are pretty good right now, but I'm hesitant to get one without the rear head protection system, especially since the sedans have it as do Audi, Mercedes and Volvo wagons.

The 5 Series wagons do not have a head protection airbag. BMW officials explain that it is simply due to the different configuration of a wagon versus a sedan and the absence of a C-pillar makes the curtain airbag not possible as portions of the curtain would need to anchor to the nonexistent C-pillar. There is currently no redesigned 5 Series wagon and no word if the new one will or will not include a head protection system when that car finally does hit the market. — Ed.

Subject: Premium Fuel
From: Manny

I just bought a Mitsubishi Spyder Eclipse and I have a question about the requirement for using premium unleaded fuel. When I purchased the car, the salesman told me that the car was recommended to run on premium fuel (it also says that inside the fuel hatch cover), he also added with the wink of an eye that I could use midgrade and not experience any problems. It also says essentially the same thing in the owner's manual. For years I believed that you should use the lowest level octane gasoline that didn't cause your engine to knock. Well I've been using regular (87 octane) unleaded gas and haven't had a problem (I'm at about 3,300 miles). I guess I want to know why manufacturers recommend premium fuel if it's not really necessary?

All modern cars use advanced computer control systems. These systems can effectively adapt a vehicle ignition system (primarily the ignition timing) to run on almost any level of fuel quality. That's not to say you should go find some cheap kerosene to power your vehicle, but even high-end sports cars (that are supposed to be fed only high-octane premium fuel) can run on 87 octane without knocking or pinging. However, vehicle performance will suffer, and it's possible (though unlikely) that over time you could build up more deposits in the fuel system or combustion chamber by running a high-performance engine on low-octane fuel. The bottom line is this: if you want maximum engine performance you should use premium fuel in engines that require it. But even these engines don't really require it if your only concern is to not hear any knocking and pinging from under the hood. — Ed.

Subject: Confessions of a Car Salesman
From: JF

I just want to tell you that the Chandler Phillips article was right on and you guys are to be congratulated for hiring him to do it. I am a retired electrical engineer and financial planner who worked for three weeks at a local high-pressure dealership, which sells Chevrolets, Mercedes, BMWs and, of course, used cars. Chandler hit the nail on the head. The management treats the salespeople and the prospects like dirt. I was so disgusted by what I learned that I could not continue. When I left, I told the GM many of the things that I thought were wrong with the operation, but he didn't appreciate my criticism at all. The salesmen barely eke out a living anymore. I learned I could make as little as $250 for selling a new Mercedes so I would have to sell used cars to make anything. The dealerships make higher margins on used cars. The publicly traded company which owns this dealership says right in its annual report that the margins on used cars are better because it's almost impossible for the buyer to know what a fair price for a vehicle is. At least Edmunds tries to help the buyers. Kudos to Chandler for a great report. Buyers beware!

Subject: Ford GT Story
From: Bob

I just finished your article on the Ford GT. What a fantastic write-up! Being the hard-core car nut that I am, I find few authors who can balance sarcasm, wit and technical aptitude as well as you just did. Except for my Autoweek subscription, I only buy English car magazines (EVO in particular) because they are more tilted toward the insights I look for in test-drives. I am the engineer in charge and the supplier of the GT's engine mounts. I have also driven the car and tried to debate with the Ford engineers that the steering is too light. I lost. After reading your article, I have to say they (and you) are right. The majority of owners will appreciate the "all access" of this car.

P.S. Can't wait to read your First Drive of the U.S.-spec Lotus Elise. I was going to put money down for one, but I waited too long. Now the list is over 20 deep.

Thanks for the feedback (and the tip about the Elise, I knew I should have reserved a spot sooner!). — Ed.

Subject: Lutz Interview
From: Marc

I enjoyed reading Karl Brauer's interview with GM's Bob Lutz. I personally would have liked to read what Lutz had to say about hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles instead of hearing him talk about how great the Corvette is and how it's better than the Viper. Yawn. The Corvette is a great car generation after generation, I don't think anyone disputes that fact…old news, please move on.

I've also been thinking quite a bit about what Lutz had to say about his Japanese competitors, namely Toyota and its Camry. Specifically his comments regarding actual quality, fit and finish and the perception of quality were revealing. Honestly, he comes off sounding pretty condescending, implying that we naïve consumers are being hoodwinked by the Japanese and European makers because they pay more attention to fit and finish details. These are important things. A consumer is buying a complete car, not just a drivetrain. I don't care how good the Malibu brakes and handles, if the interior looks, feels and sounds cheap, the car will and should collect dust on dealer floors. Lutz does acknowledge that these are important things on the one hand, but on the other he makes a big point out of the JD Power rankings.

But what really has me steamed is his flag-waving, chest-thumping "buy American" speech. It struck me as disingenuous as well as antiquated. Doesn't GM take advantage of foreign labor, products and partnerships? Who can forget when GM closed its factories in Flint, Michigan? And then he tries to lay the "reindustrialization of America" guilt trip on us consumers? That's rich, Bob, really, really rich.

Look, if he wants to play the patriot game, then perhaps GM should dedicate itself to producing 100-percent American product from the raw materials to the labor to the final product. All should be true red, white and blue. They should also sell all of their foreign holdings and drop their partnerships with Toyota. I mean, HELLO? Can you say Matrix/Vibe? Heck, maybe if they had teamed up with Toyota on the Aztek, that wouldn't have been such a disaster…OK, I digress, no more name-calling.

The fact of the matter is that just because an automobile chief executive has his office in a fancy Detroit high-rise, rather than a fancy Tokyo high-rise, is no reason to "buy American." I would just as soon buy a superior product from a company that has committed to producing and developing more environmentally friendly vehicles for at least 20 years than a company who's just getting around to producing better vehicles because they must do so to simply survive.

All that said, thanks for the interview…I do wish though that you hadn't have let some of the points I mentioned above slide.

Subject: Lutz Interview
From: Victor

I enjoyed reading the Bob Lutz interview a lot. It was well written and really gave some great insight into a top auto exec. I hope Edmunds can continue to publish similar interviews with other interesting people in the industry.

Subject: Lutz Interview
From: Kirk

A couple of thoughts about your interview with Bob Lutz:

When GM starts talking about patriotic virtue in buying an "American" vehicle it seems to strike of desperation about the competitiveness of their products. They have no issues buying Toyota-built four-cylinder engines, made in West Virginia, for the Pontiac Vibe (assembled at NUMMI, a GM/Toyota joint venture) for example. I'm sure that purchasing a Pontiac Vibe helps ensure that the U.S. will have an automotive manufacturing future, while purchasing a Toyota Matrix will lead to decline. Get real.

The new Toyota Solara was completely designed and engineered in the U.S. (admittedly from a platform with heavy Japanese engineering content). Hondas generally have 85-percent U.S. content. The yen does not account for the competitive position of these companies: products do.

It's clear most consumers look beyond national origin when plunking down hard-earned dollars on a vehicle. Lutz wants us to believe that a Chevy Malibu provides equal value to a Toyota Camry, if only we could get beyond misguided perceptions not only about GM but also the virtue of an American Toyota manufacturing presence. Consumers may or may not accept the new Malibu (and other new GM products), but it will be based on the merits of that product. The fact that Lutz and his ilk continue to focus on supposed unfair advantages, while undermining the significance of offshore capital investments in this country, should be instructive.

Subject: Quest
From: Shane

Just wanted to personally thank you for your superb reviews. Edmunds has surely been a valuable tool for me the last few years. I just purchased a new minivan, and was grateful for your in-depth reviews. One in particular really struck me; in which I quote you from your 2004 Nissan Quest review:

"There was a hollow feeling to the doors which detracted from the general feeling of value to the van. The build quality was very good with no noticeable gaps in the tolerances. Some of the components seemed a little cheap-feeling with plastic flashing still visible. The center console moved slightly when the shift level was put in gear."

When you wrote that, I wanted to give you a high five. I thought I was the only person who noticed that. In fact, the "door shutting thing" is one of my requirements when purchasing a new vehicle. My wife thinks I'm crazy, so I forwarded her that review!

Regardless, I ended up purchasing a 2003 Honda Odyssey EX-L. Totally love it, and appreciate all of your hard work.

Subject: Terrorism Saves the Planet
From: Greg

I was happy to read what you said in your article. I pray enough people heard it.

Subject: Editors' Most Wanted
From: Linda

Thank you, thank you for listing the Mercury Mountaineer as an Editors' Most Wanted. We had done months of research (much of it on your Web site) before deciding on a Mountaineer for our next vehicle. I was feeling a little unsure because the Honda Pilot (our second choice) seemed to be getting all the attention. But we liked all the extras on the Mercury, so we just ordered one yesterday morning. We'll be holding our heads a little higher knowing we're on "the list."

Subject: Most Wanted
From: Anthony

Yearly I look forward to Edmunds' "Most Wanted Awards" and considering these are opinions based by the experience of your auto journalists, I respect their opinions upon some of the choices. But this year I really have to question their vote on the Nissan Titan. Granted, I, too, would grant it as most significant vehicle considering this is Nissan's first venture into the full-size pickup segment, and unlike other manufacturers (Tundra's 3/4th effort) they hit a home run on their first try.

But under the Full-Size Truck segment I was surprised not to see the new F-150 even receive an honorable mention…instead it went to the Dodge Ram?

Considering the numerous reviews I have read on the F-150, and being proclaimed by numerous media sources as the best truck ever, I fail to see why the F-150 was not awarded top honors. Some of these media sources themselves are strictly critical over domestic manufacturers, and having them proclaim such merits on the F-150 was quite shocking. Myself, having driven both, I can appreciate Nissan's effort, and it excels in a few things quite well. But the F-150 averages 860K units sold yearly (high of 941K two years ago), does numerous other things much better than the Titan, is available in numerous configurations and really defines what a real truck should be with a proven reliability record (according to JD Power). And being a strong overall leader within its class, I was dismayed at the outcome.

I also question their choices upon the Passat and various VW vehicles. Having nine friends who own VW vehicles, I suggest these same editors own one for longer than a year's time for them to experience the horrible reliability that these cars possess. I've questioned in years prior why Edmunds would continue to recommend such notoriously unreliable vehicles. Granted, on its merits of actual driving experience and great interior materials and presentation I would have to rate it high overall. But while it's easy to recommend a vehicle for these factors, overall ownership experience and reliability should be taken into account.

When it comes to the Ford F-150, we like three things about it: it is offered in many variations, its ride quality is very refined and it has a very quiet interior. However, the Dodge Ram has more horsepower, weighs less, looks better, offers better steering feel and feedback and has a better warranty. The Nissan Titan has an extremely powerful and refined drivetrain, a superior interior (yes, even against the new F-150's cabin), a highly innovative rear-opening door design on the King Cab and available side impact-protection airbags (side airbags are neither standard nor optional on the F-150). None of these are bad trucks (and the full-size GM offerings are excellent as well). In a race this close the deciding factors come down to minor points, but when put under the microscope we prefer the Titan and Ram against the F-150 or the GM full-size trucks, though not by much.

In terms of the Passat, we had a certified, used Passat in our long-term fleet for two years. It had one near overheating experience (but it didn't actually overheat), an annoying rear taillight that intermittently went out and the clutch seemed to engage high in the pedal travel, but it never actually slipped and wasn't replaced during our two-year ownership. We don't consider any of these factors serious enough to warn people away from the Passat. We also owned a long-term Audi A4 for over a year, with no serious mechanical issues. We keep hearing about these supposed Volkswagen/Audi mechanical problems, but we haven't ever experienced them. — Ed.

Subject: Editors' Ratings
From: Denise

Thank you for providing all the good and dependable information. Your Web site is one of the best.

I would like to ask you a question regarding the editors' ratings. As per your midsize crossover comparison test, your first place was Mitsubishi Endeavor, second was Honda Pilot, third was Murano and fourth was Highlander.

But checking the editors' rating, Endeavor is 8.0, Pilot is 8.3, Murano is 8.0 and Highlander is 7.5. Is Endeavor getting worse? Is Pilot getting better in 2004?

Also, saw Ford Expedition rated at 7.8 right now and Chevy Tahoe's editors' rating at 7.4. But in the conclusion in your full-size SUV comparison test, they came up even (tied). So which results should I go for?

If you're interested in a ranking based purely on hard, quantifiable data, your best bet is to follow the rankings shown in our comparison tests. Our comparison tests are designed to produce results that are nearly 100-percent objective.

Our editors' ratings (much like our annual Most Wanted awards) tend to be more subjective. Here, the personal preferences of each of our editors play a larger role in the final score that each vehicle is given. Having said that, the editors' ratings you noted above closely match our comparison test results. The Tahoe and Expedition are both desirable SUVs, so the editors' rating has less than a 0.5 variation between them. In the crossover segment, our editors' ratings and comparison test results are nearly identical, with the Pilot getting only a slight advantage over the Endeavor (these two were also very close in the comparison test rankings). — Ed.

Subject: Sienna Recall Question
From: Bill

My wife and I are in the market for a minivan. After several hours of poking around on the Internet and subsequent test-drives, I was sold on the 2004 Toyota Sienna. The current 9.3 consumer rating is unbelievable, especially for a minivan. Unfortunately, a couple days later my wife yells down from the computer room that the Sienna has a recall. Even more disconcerting, a fuel tank assembly recall! I read your article so I'm sure you're aware of it. Do you still have your Sienna?

My question is: How much should this recall dissuade me from buying the Sienna? It seemed head and shoulders above everything else we looked at. (OK, we haven't seen the Freestar yet. But I'm not holding my breath.) I am assuming that the new Siennas made since the recall notification will have the redesigned fuel tank and that the recall won't be an issue. However, does this recall on a redesigned vehicle imply that other recalls will follow? My wife is totally against purchasing the Sienna solely based upon the recall. So I am hoping you can give us some peace of mind or point us toward a different but similar vehicle. We currently have a 2000 Impala, which we are keeping and have had no problems with. We are looking to trade in our 2001 Ford Escape (obviously, the new-model-potential-bug stigma hasn't deterred us from purchases in the past), which I find impractical for our needs (two kids, non-adventurous family).

Road Test Editor John DiPietro responds: We still have our Sienna, as it will be in our long-term fleet for a year.

In light of the fact that Toyota has one of the best reputations as far as not having recalls (or trouble in general with its vehicles) and that the Sienna has received top-notch crash test scores, we wouldn't let the lone recall dissuade us from buying a Sienna. Furthermore, if past history is any indicator, we wouldn't expect a rash of recalls to plague the Sienna.

The Sienna has so much going for it — refined manners, plenty of power, excellent build quality and an enticing array of usable features — that we would have no problem recommending it.

Subject: Leasing Question
From: ML

I'm coming upon the end of my lease (three months). My lease was for 48 months. I replaced all four tires about five months ago and now I need to replace the front struts on my 2000 Grand Am GT. Is it better for me to replace them now or turn the car in the way it is and move on to the next car?

Consumer Advice Editor Phil Reed responds: You can call the lease company and ask for an inspection of your vehicle before you turn it in. You should only worry about the items they identify as needing to be fixed. I doubt they will catch the struts on a lease inspection.

Subject: Mountaineer Problems
From: Dan

Starting at 9,000 miles we have had several problems with our Mountaineer. During the winter when the temperature drops into the 20s, the vehicle will start but will not go over 10-15 mph until it warms up. The wheels feel like they're spinning. The transmission was replaced but the problems occurred again the next winter. We also experienced rapid downshifting without warning from 4th to 2nd gear when traveling in city traffic. We are afraid of being rear ended. The third problem is a howl (sounds computer generated) at 55-70 mph. The dealership has not been helpful. Any ideas?

Road Test Editor John DiPietro responds: I went to the Edmunds.com Maintenance Guide to check for recalls and/or technical service bulletins (TSBs) on the Mountaineer and found a mountain of 'em, several of which sound related to your problems.

I would suggest that you print out any TSBs that apply to your vehicle's problems, make a service appointment with another dealer (after telling him what's wrong with your Mountaineer and what you found as far as TSBs) and hand him copies of the TSBs when you drop the Mountaineer off to be fixed.

Additionally, there should be no cost for the repairs. The following is a statement from one of our articles on TSBs: "A technical service bulletin (TSB) is issued by the manufacturer. More commonly known as a 'secret warranty,' a TSB is distributed to all of the manufacturer's dealerships and it often instructs service personnel to fix problems covered by the TSB free of charge, but only if the repair is necessary to resolve a customer complaint."

Subject: Steep Driveway
From: Jeanne

I just bought a house that has rugged terrain for a driveway. Are Jeeps the best way to go? I don't care about a rough ride or looks, I just need to get to work this winter. We are talking 35-percent grade. I am mechanically inept so I would prefer something with a decent reliability reputation. I looked at a '99 Grand Cherokee (50,000 miles) and a '97 Grand Cherokee (44,000 miles), both in sweet condition. Any advice?

You don't have to go with a Jeep to guarantee success when climbing a steep hill in the winter, but for all-out ability in these conditions they are tough to beat. Unfortunately, mechanical reliability isn't one of their strengths. We had a long-term 1999 Grand Cherokee, and it suffered more mechanical problems than we found acceptable. Worthy alternatives you might consider are the Nissan Xterra or Toyota 4Runner, both of which are widely available on the used market and fully capable of dealing with a steep driveway in the winter. — Ed.

Subject: A Few Questions
From: Charles

1) I read your review of the 2003 Honda Accord LX. I have this car, and my manual clearly states to use regular gasoline, while your review recommends premium. I have found both power and gas mileage are excellent when using regular. Was the "premium" comment a typo, or does the vehicle run better with its VTEC engine using premium?

2) My wife and I are going to be retiring to Vermont, where as you know there is plenty of snow and ice. Do you know of any reviews that rate vehicles on how well they handle driving on snow and icy roads?

3) I know squat about car mechanics. Is there a way to raise the car off the ground higher, i.e., raise the height of the frame that would allow better maneuvering in deep snow? I do realize the vehicle would not be as stable on highway speeds, so it would be a trade-off.

1. While the 2003 Accord V6 will run fine on regular gasoline, it will also run better on premium. Honda basically gives customers the option of using either grade of gasoline, so people interested in performance can use premium fuel while those interested in reducing their fuel budget can use regular fuel.
2. Most of today's modern cars do well on snow and ice because antilock brakes, traction control and stability control have become so commonplace. If you buy a vehicle with all three of these features you should be OK. For even more security, purchase an all-wheel-drive vehicle.
3. There are aftermarket kits, called "lift kits" for just about any modern SUV (and even plenty of today's cars) so raising a vehicle is easily accomplished. Your local dealers can probably point you to a shop that specializes in this kind of work. — Ed.