Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: "Top 10 Most Fuel-Efficient Cars of 2007"
From: Bing
So where is the VW Jetta Diesel in your article? I consistently get 46-49 mpg with mine. So should I really believe what you wrote? Maybe you could change the title so you're accurate.

Slow down there, Bing. Yes, the Jetta Diesel is very fuel-efficient. However, it isn't being offered as a 2007 model. As a result, it didn't make our list. — Ed.

Subject: Off-Road SUVs
From: Kwaku
I have been reading your Full Test of the 2005 Land Rover LR3. While the unibody construction, independent suspension and complex electronics have undoubtedly improved on-road ride while sacrificing little in off-road ability, I really wonder if the vehicle can survive sustained off-road use and towing.

What are the choices for people who want SUVs for the purposes they are originally intended for (that is, tough off-road use)? The Ford Expedition and Chevy Tahoe come to mind, but while these vehicles can easily tow large loads like a camping trailer, their off-road abilities are nowhere near those of a Land Rover! So what does one get?

I personally disagree with the notion that most SUV owners don't care about off-road ability. Sure, they hardly use their vehicles off-road, but they buy them expecting strong off-road performance if they should ever, ever need them and take satisfaction from that (much like most Ferrari owners would never drive the cars to their full potential, yet take satisfaction that they're driving the fastest cars on the road). I feel that SUV buyers would eventually feel outraged when they learn that most of their vehicles cannot compete with a basic 4x4 Toyota Tacoma off-road. (Imagine how outraged Ferrari owners would be if Ferrari decided to make their cars only as fast as BMW M3s, because most drivers would never need more speed than an M3 can provide!)

Hence, I think Land Rover and all SUV manufacturers should stick to the basics of offering body-on-frame, beam-axle vehicles that offer great off-road ability and acceptable on-road abilities. After all, nobody expects an SUV to drive like a Mazda 3.

In our experience, the Land Rover LR3 functions quite well in off-road situations. Our recommendations for off-road-friendly SUVs include the Hummer H3, the Jeep Commander and Wrangler, the Land Rover LR3 and Range Rover, the Nissan Xterra and the Toyota FJ Cruiser.

Here are a few stories you may find useful: Full Test: 2006 Jeep Commander Limited 4x4

Comparison Test: 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser vs. 2006 Nissan Xterra Off-Road

Full Test: 2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara

The Toyota FJ Cruiser/Nissan Xterra comparison should be especially valuable, since it evaluates both vehicles based on their off-road capabilities. — Ed.

Subject: "Top 10 Cars for Seniors for 2007"
From: John
I happened to come across this article and have a few comments. The article uses words like "cater to the needs." Is this what we really want to do?

The features heralded sound more like those one would expect in their den or bedroom at home. These features, while making it easier and perhaps safer for folks to drive, also may well lull the driver into complacency. Additionally, drivers spend more time playing with the buttons rather than paying attention to the road.

The problem these features are trying to solve is aging (poor eyesight, less flexibility, sore muscles and bones, etc). What is really needed is improved driving skills, especially in more complex driving conditions that we all face today. Do we really want to encourage drivers with these limitations to be on the road?

I believe we should be teaching all drivers additional skills by retesting with advanced or performance driving techniques. Unless we can be sure driving skills (reaction time, visibility, avoidance techniques, etc) are all in place, all the technological doodads, bells and whistles in the world will not really help, but will only compound the problem.

Technology has helped many drivers with "limitations" to get behind the wheel and function as effectively as anyone else. Mobility-challenged drivers, for example, are able to equip their vehicles in a way that allows them to drive in safety and with confidence. We think seniors stand to benefit in a similar fashion from technological advances, and as a result, technology was one of the themes featured on our list. — Ed.

Subject: "Extended Warranties vs. Certified Used Car Programs"
From: Lynda
I am a 56-year-old woman who was (it's now on hold) in the planning stage of trading in my certified used Honda Civic for a Honda 4X4 wheel vehicle. Your article about extended warranties vs. certified used car programs is extremely helpful for ignorant people like me. I've only now discovered — 2 1/2 years after I purchased my certified car — that I'd purchased two kinds of insurance on my car from the dealership, since the car is a certified used vehicle.

I brought this matter to the Honda dealership. (I told them that I want to cancel the GE Five Star Wrap, which cost me $1,495.) Currently I am waiting for the Honda dealership to get back to me. As for the other insurance that I also paid, I still have to get in touch with the Oak Group, Illinois, for the cancellation of the Gap insurance I paid $495 for.

I know I won't get the full amounts that I paid on these insurances but I know that I will get some of it. Your article helped me discover and understand that the insurance fees I paid are not necessary. The bottom line is that the Honda dealership double-charged me without the decency of taking the time to explain what these insurances were for. I know I signed the document but I was ignorant of what I was signing and I know that ignorance is no excuse. It's only now through your article that I am learning all of these acts that this dealership has done.

Thank you and keep on publishing articles which are extremely helpful and useful to everyone especially to ignorant people like me. I salute you and please continue your good work.

Well, you recognize the sheer genius of our articles, Lynda, so how ignorant could you really be? Thanks for the kudos. — Ed.

Subject: Daniel Pund From: Rob
Kudos to Daniel Pund, who actually writes some new and original material and perspectives on the cars he reviews. So much written in the automotive press seems like it is just cut and pasted from other authors' work. I was beginning to believe the entire auto press generated only a few pages of truly original stuff per year, and then just rearranged those pages many times. I was wrong, at least in Pund's case.

Subject: "Top 10 April Fools Tips To Save Gas"
From: Bart
Where is April Fools tip number 10? I got a bit confused, and I thought I might have to go back to school again! But maybe you could help me out here.

No need to go back to school, Bart. Listing nine tips instead of 10 was simply our little April Fools joke. Let the belly laughs begin. — Ed.

Subject: "Long-Term Road Test: 2004 Mazda RX-8"
From: Robert
Edmunds.com has been an excellent resource for me, and it is one of my first steps in researching a car purchase whenever I am in the market. That said, I was reading over your long-term review of the 2004 Mazda RX-8, and had a concern with what might be considered a slight inaccuracy in the report. One of the reviewers cited excessive oil use, and found it "concerning" that oil needed to be added so early in the vehicle's life.

I feel compelled to point out that rotary engines burn oil by design. I own a 1989 RX-7 with a similar engine, and I have researched the design and history of the rotary engine. To give a general explanation, since rotary engines differ from piston engines, their lubrication methods must differ as well. Where a piston engine has cylinders exposed to oil, the rotary has chambers that are sealed off from it. Because of this, oil must be injected into the combustion chambers to ensure proper lubrication, hence the need to monitor oil level and add when necessary. The fact that oil consumption was noted in the review is an excellent sign that the testers are doing a great job.

In this case, it might help to note the reasons behind the consumption in the review for a few reasons. First, it will avoid giving a negative connotation to the RX-8's oil consumption, as reading the review gave the impression it might be unreliable. ("Other" rotary owners claiming it to be normal was not really a strong enough statement to counter the reviewer's concern.) Secondly, it would be great to enlighten readers a bit about the rotary engine, since it is so unlike any other engine in other automobiles and requires some different maintenance habits (like watching/adding oil more closely). Finally, it would look good to readers to see such specialized technical knowledge and even further legitimize the reviewer. As I have said, Edmunds has always done a great job, and I hoped I could give back with some helpful information.

Thank you for the excellent service. I will continue to use it with confidence.

We do realize that oil consumption is part of the package with rotary engines. Perhaps you missed this excerpt from our wrap-up of the Mazda RX-8 Long-Term Test, which addresses this topic:

"We also discovered that the RX-8 had a slight thirst for another vital fluid — oil. Upon checking the owner's manual we discovered that this is normal, and a long-standing characteristic of the rotary engine. Mazda recommends checking the oil level at every other gas stop, and so do we."

Thanks for your feedback, and we're glad you enjoy the site. — Ed.

Subject: Kids in the Front Seat
From: Rob
Please help. No one will give a definitive answer regarding the minimum height and weight for a teen riding in the front seat.

It's generally recommended that those younger than 13 years of age should never ride in a front seat equipped with an active passenger side airbag.

Most guidelines recommend that your child be at least 100 pounds and 5 feet tall before moving up to the front seat. Note that this guideline applies even to vehicles without passenger airbags, and safety groups encourage all to follow this practice. Additionally, your child should be in a booster seat (not a seatbelt) until she's 4-foot-9. — Ed.

Subject: "Follow-Up Test: 2007 Dodge Charger Police Package"
From: Chris
I've been reading Edmunds for many years now, and it's by far my most favorite automotive site. The site is easy to navigate and there is a lot of useful information that has gotten me into my past two cars.

I just finished reading the follow-up test on the 2007 Dodge Charger police package. I have a great amount of respect for law enforcement, and I have friends who are law enforcement officers. I thought the piece was well-written and humorous, except for this paragraph:

"It's the best thing to happen to cops since the Supreme Court said we had to read suspects their rights.'"

I'm not sure how to take this. I'm sure it's meant in jest, but it's just not funny. It comes across as arrogant and as an "us versus them" mentality. My law enforcement officer friends have told me some stories, and I can understand how some officers feel this way, about dealing with idiots, scum and the worst of society. That being said, most of us are hard-working and law-abiding citizens, and it's offensive to hear the above language that mocks the rights of a detainee. I hope I'm never in the position of being arrested, but even worse would be being arrested by someone with the above mindset. Please consider being a bit more discerning in what gets published on an otherwise excellent site.

Subject: "How To Change Your Brake Pads"
From: Matt
Thanks for the article on changing front brakes. This was my first time doing it, and I couldn't have done it without ya!