Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: Interior Noise Levels
From: Shimada

Hearing loss is sustained from around 85 dB. The Edmunds reviews on the '03 Mazda 6 and the '03 Honda Accord LX showed 92 dB at 70 mph. Other Edmunds reviews for Mercedes, Infiniti, Nissan and BMW showed levels less than 80 dB. Even the Porsche Turbo 911 showed less than 85 dB (Car and Driver showed a level in the 70s for the Mazda 6). Could there have been a mistake in taking the measurements for the Mazda 6 and the Honda Accord LX?

It's likely we got a bogus reading from the sound meter. The equipment needs to be calibrated before testing, and upon further investigation we think this calibration process was not performed before recording interior dB on those two vehicles (they were both tested on the same day). We should also point out that the preproduction status of both test cars affected the sound levels. Preproduction cars are not as well screwed together as final assembly versions, and they often don't contain all pieces of sound-deadening material. However, even preproduction status shouldn't have resulted in such high readings. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

We'll be doing a comparison test on this class of vehicles in the future, so look for those numbers to more accurately measure interior sound levels. — Ed.


Subject: Turbo Engines and Octane
From: James

I was reading your column on turbochargers in the tech center of your Web site.

Not knowing much of anything about cars eight months or so ago when I first stumbled onto Edmunds.com (through Yahoo Autos if you're interested how) the site has been really interesting and worthwhile for me.

I still don't know much though, as evidenced by this question. Basically what I wanted to know is: Must all turbocharged vehicles use a sort of "premium" fuel? For those that are listed as recommending this (although I've had trouble finding this listing information) what is the effect of using plain old regular instead of the more expensive premium stuff?

It certainly makes sense to me that the higher gas would give you better mileage, and possibly make you feel more comfortable with your $100,000 Porsche or something to that effect.

Anyways, thanks for all the countless info Edmunds has already given me. Look forward to hearing the answer to this question that's been bugging me for awhile now.

Thanks for the kind words about Edmunds.com. We continue to try and provide the most comprehensive automotive information on the Internet.

As for premium fuel and turbochargers, the important thing to remember is that premium fuel has a higher octane rating, and a higher octane greatly reduces the possibility of predetonation, or "knocking" or "pinging" in an engine. Pinging occurs when the air-fuel mixture ignites before the spark plug fires, meaning there is an explosion in the combustion chamber before the piston is in the proper position. As you might imagine, having a piston still moving up while premature combustion tries to force it down is not good. Extended predetonation will melt a piston and destroy an engine.

Now, when you start talking about turbocharged engines, the potential for damage during predetonation is greatly increased because of the higher combustion chamber pressure due to the turbocharging effect. In a turbocharged (or supercharged) engine, the potential for damage during predetonation is significantly greater.

So, the bottom line is that you may not need higher octane with a turbocharged engine (most modern-day engines are equipped with "knock sensors" that will retard the ignition to protect the engine), but if, by chance, you do need premium fuel and you don't have it, the consequences could be disastrous. If you're still not sure, ask a dealer service advisor or mechanic who is an expert on the specific type of turbocharged car you're referring to.

Hope this helps. Thanks again for visiting Edmunds.com. — Ed.


Subject: Hating SUVs
From: Joe

It's awfully hard to take issue with someone who's first car (and first love I would guess) was a '68 Charger R/T. Mine was a '69 Charger R/T with the 440 Magnum!

But, take issue I must with your incomplete analysis of the SUV safety issue. I absolutely agree with your point that the safety of any vehicle is predominantly determined by the driver's behavior, often to the detriment of themselves and their passengers. Worse yet though in the case of SUVs is that they are inherently onerous offensive weapons aimed at the innocent drivers and passengers of other "normal" vehicles because of their design dimensions. It will not be long before the same plaintiff's attorneys who went after Ford on the Explorer/Firestone tire issue figure out that this design issue is a systemic liability with a pot of gold behind its facade. When faced with a multibillion class action judgment, the manufacturers and the insurance companies will stop making and insuring these completely purposeless beasts.

In case you wondered, at the ripe old age of 46, my current ride is a Focus SVT. Cheers, and keep up the good work!

I'd hate to see the day when lawyers are deciding what's best for all of us. That said, you are correct that SUVs, in the hands of bad drivers (an increasingly accurate description of far too many Americans these days), do present a greater safety risk than a bad driver in a Toyota Echo. However, for the individual who carries several people and/or plenty of cargo on a regular basis, SUVs are not "completely purposeless beasts." — Ed.


Subject: Luxury Sport Sedan Comparo
From: Keron

I (and a billion other people) am dumbfounded by your recent luxury sport sedan comparo. I'm personally starting to think that you editors are very biased towards BMW and Honda…do they pay you guys…you don't tell it like it is. I totally disagree with your results and comments. How is it that you guys got such bad acceleration and braking times for the G35 when every other magazine (except Car and Driver's comparo…which your comparo seems to mirror exactly…hmmm) gets a 6.1 to 6.2 0-to-60 mph, and a braking distance almost as good as a ZO6 Vette (112 feet I believe)? I have driven three out of the five cars (330, G35, TL-S) and out of the three the G35 is the clear winner. It's faster, smooth like butter, has more interior space, lots of options and it's cheaper. You guys complain that the interior materials are cheap. Hello, we are talking about a company that almost went out of business here, and for them to be making cars like the G35 and Altima in their toughest times, that to me is outstanding…and a few little gripes can be forgiven…besides the interior is not as cheap as everyone pretends it to be. I can't even begin to fathom how the TLS came in second…this is the unbelievable part. If your results were 330, A4, G35, TLS, CTS, then it would have been a bit more acceptable, but personally I would rank it: #1 330 and/or G35 #2 A4 #3 TLS #4 CTS. One more thing, how is it that you can't forgive the G35 for a few little things but you can forgive the 330 for its lack of interior room, "Chris Bangle design" and the bloated sticker price even with few options? What the hell is going on here? You may think that I own a G35 but you're wrong I actually own a Honda Accord. I am just an enthusiast that thinks that you people are unfair, biased or just getting old.

We are biased toward BMW and Honda, and it has everything to do with the cars they produce. When a car company(s) produces excellent product, we are drawn to those products and quick to point out their strengths for our readers. In fact, we consider this to be one of our primary functions. We're not sure why the G35's numbers were less impressive during our testing than in other publications' comparisons. We can tell you that all competitors were tested on the same day under the same conditions, and no "correcting" of the numbers was done for any cars (this often leads to slower, but more accurate, acceleration figures at Edmunds.com when compared to other automotive publications). — Ed.


Subject: Comparisons of Midpriced Sedans and Wagons
From: Lawrence

My vehicle, the Subaru Legacy, is not shown as one of the higher ranked vehicles, while the Volkswagen Passat is ranked at the top, or near the top, of the list.

The 2003 AWD Subaru Legacy L wagon is available, off the floor, for about $20,000. An AWD Passat wagon would, probably, cost about $10,000 more.

In addition the Subaru can reasonably be expected to last for 150,000-300,000 miles, and continues to achieve the highest Insurance Institute crash worthiness ratings.


Subject: Mazda 6 Acceleration
From: R.S.

Would you mind clarifying if the Mazda 6 you tested achieved a 0-60 time of eight seconds or 7.3 seconds? This comment in the specification report is causing a lot of confusion: "After noticing that the 6's engine is a bit soft at low rpm, we tried brake-torquing the engine to 2,000 and instantly shaved almost seven-tenths off the zero-to-60 time."

It is my understanding that Edmunds publishes the best times, and since it is stated in the review as eight seconds, I think that is with brake-torquing. Again, please clarify. Thanks.

You are correct in assuming we publish the best times on the specification sheet. The 0-to-60 time of eight seconds was achieved after brake-torquing the engine to 2,000 rpm. Before trying that technique the car was taking closer to nine seconds to reach 60 mph. Sorry for the confusion. — Ed.