Acronyms
November 16, 2011 | 
Author 
For the past several years the editors of the New York Times have been suffering major anxiety palpitations over the threat to the populace posed by pavement-pulverizing, gasoline-swilling, compact-crushing, rollover-prone sport-utility vehicles. The rest of the media elite have followed the lead of the frumps at the
Times , waxing hysterical over the obvious reality that tall, heavy vehicles roll over more easily and stop less efficiently than their lower, lighter counterparts. Then came the Ford/Firestone debacle, which sent television reporters and editorialists everywhere into swoons of terror, identifying the scourge of the SUVs as the next Black Plague to envelop civilization.
Manufacturers from the start have responded to these tocsins with bigger and bigger SUVs — machines with their own ZIP Codes, packing V-8 and V-10 engines with enough power and torque to electrify small Third World countries.
Here came the fleets of Excursions, Escalades, Yukons, Yukon XLs, and Durangos, all with gonzo motors and sufficiently low fuel mileage to qualify for eternal damnation from Ozone Al Gore and the Friends of the Earth. Now Toyota is in the act. Yes, the same Toyota whose Priuses, Echos, and Corollas are among the lightest, most fuel-efficient vehicles in the world. But Japan’s largest automobile manufacturer is a profit-making business, not a division of the Sierra Club, and after first attacking the domestic full-size-pickup market with its new Tundra last year, it was only a matter of time (measured in months) before that platform would be modified into what is charitably called the "full-size" SUV class (or what Lane Bryant would call in women’s fashions "full-figured").
Although the Sequoia falls a bit short of the outre weight and size standards set by Ford’s Excursion and GM’s Suburban, it is one big Namu, offering eight leather-bound seats in a neatly styled if unremarkable package. Offered in two- and four-wheel-drive versions (priced from $31,295 and topping out at $44,000 for our loaded four-wheel-drive test vehicle), the Sequoia is substantially cheaper and slightly more capacious than the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Lexus LX470, both of which are powered by the same 4.7-liter DOHC V-8 developed for the Tundra pickup, tuned for 240 hp here. This puts the Sequoia, pricewise, in direct competition with the Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Ford Expedition, while offering world-class Toyota fabrication and reliability. The only clue that its lineage can be traced to the Tundra, except for its engine, is the presence of the four-speed automatic shift lever on the steering column, as opposed to a console mount found in most upscale SUVs.
As expected, its road manners are prim and proper, in the narrow context of sport-utilities. (Note: With the possible exception of the BMW X5, there isn’t an SUV built that could be described as possessing decent handling.) Our Sequoia, weighing in at 5251 pounds and standing two inches more than six feet tall, and with 10.6 inches of ground clearance, wobbled around the skidpad generating 0.71 g of cornering force. This is not a bad number for an SUV of this size, but the Sequoia cannot be confused with a modern sedan.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/01q1/toyota_sequoia_limited_4x4-road_test
Mercedes-Benz has released images of its new A-Class concept ahead of its official reveal at the Shanghai motor show next week.
The concept should give a fairly strong direction of what the next A-Class should look like when it arrives in 2012.
The bold styling does hide the fact that this is a more conventional attempt at a compact car by Mercedes – previous generations of the A-Class have used an innovative sandwich-style construction, fitting key components under the floor of the cabin to free up space.
The car is fitted out with a 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine developing 210bhp, so there are no eco pretensions here – even the air vents inside the cabin are said to be reminiscent of a jet fighter’s afterburners.
The A-Class concept features a whole raft of electronic aids, many of which would be a first in this segment if they made it through to the production version. The main one is a radar-based collision avoidance system which gives a warning to the driver and prepares the brakes when it predicts a collision.
Mercedes has found it difficult to make a profit from the A-Class because of its expensive construction, and despite winning plaudits for the class-leading amounts of interior space has widely been expected to move to a more conventional hatchback format.
Audi’s A1 marked a similar move for the Ingolstadt-based manufacturer, having launched the advanced and innovative all-aluminium A2 in 1999 which failed to sell in large numbers.
The change hasn’t been a problem for Audi, with the A1 winning a coveted What Car? Car of the Year award.
A version of the A-Class that’s closer to production can probably be expected at the Frankfurt motor show in September, just up the road from Mercedes’ Stuttgart HQ.
Source: http://uk.autoblog.com/2011/04/07/mercedes-a-class-concept/
Indiana Lemon Law
Indiana Code § 24-5-13-1 to § 24-5-13.5-14
24-5-13-1
This chapter applies to all motor vehicles that are sold, leased, transferred, or replaced by a dealer or manufacturer in Indiana.
24-5-13-2
As used in this chapter, “business day” means a day other than Sunday or a legal holiday (as defined in IC 1-1-9-1).
24-5-13-3
As used in this chapter, “buyer” means any person who, for purposes other than resale or sublease, enters into an agreement or contract within Indiana for the transfer, lease, or purchase of a motor vehicle covered under this chapter.
24-5-13-3.4
As used in this chapter, “lease” means a contract in the form of a lease or bailment for the use of a motor vehicle by a person for more than four (4) months, whether or not the lessee has the option to purchase or otherwise become the owner of the property at the expiration of the lease.
24-5-13-3.7
As used in this chapter, “lessor” means a person who:
(1) holds title to a motor vehicle leased to a lessee under a written lease agreement; or
(2) holds the lessor’s rights under an agreement described in subdivision (1).
24-5-13-4
As used in this chapter, “manufacturer” means any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing motor vehicles, or, in the case of motor vehicles not manufactured in the United States, any person who is engaged in the business of importing motor vehicles.
24-5-13-5
As used in this chapter, “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle that:
(1) has a declared gross vehicle weight of less than ten thousand (10,000) pounds;
(2) is sold to:
(A) a buyer in Indiana and registered in Indiana; or
(B) a buyer in Indiana who is not an Indiana resident (as defined in IC 9-13-2-78);
(3) is intended primarily for use and operation on public highways; and
(4) is required to be registered or licensed before use or operation.
The term does not include conversion vans, motor homes, farm tractors, and other machines used in the actual production, harvesting, and care of farm products, road building equipment, truck tractors, road tractors, motorcycles, mopeds, snowmobiles, or vehicles designed primarily for off road use.
24-5-13-6
As used in this chapter, “nonconformity” means any specific or generic defect or condition or any concurrent combination of defects or conditions that:
(1) substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of a motor vehicle; or
(2) renders the motor vehicle nonconforming to the terms of an applicable manufacturer’s warranty.
24-5-13-7
As used in this chapter, “term of protection” means a period of time that:
(1) begins:
(A) on the date of original delivery of a motor vehicle to a buyer; or
(B) in the case of a replacement vehicle provided by a manufacturer to a buyer under this chapter, on the date of delivery of the replacement vehicle to the buyer; and
(2) ends the earlier of:
(A) eighteen (18) months after the date identified under subdivision (1); or
(B) the time the motor vehicle has been driven eighteen thousand (18,000) miles after the date identified under subdivision (1).
24-5-13-8
If a motor vehicle suffers from a nonconformity and the buyer reports the nonconformity within the term of protection to the manufacturer of the vehicle, its agent, or its authorized dealer then the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or the manufacturer’s agent or authorized dealer shall make the repairs that are necessary to correct the nonconformity, even if the repairs are made after expiration of the term of protection.
24-5-13-9
(a) A buyer must first notify the manufacturer of a claim under this chapter if the manufacturer has made the disclosure required by subsection (b). However, if the manufacturer has not made the required disclosure, the buyer is not required to notify the manufacturer of a claim under this chapter.
(b) The manufacturer shall clearly and conspicuously disclose to the buyer, in the warranty or owner’s manual, that written notification of the nonconformity is required before the buyer may be eligible for a refund or replacement of the vehicle. The manufacturer shall include with the warranty or owner’s manual the name and address to which the buyer must send notification.
24-5-13-10
If, after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer is unable to correct the nonconformity, the manufacturer shall accept the return of the vehicle from the buyer and, at the buyer’s option, either, within thirty (30) days, refund the amount paid by the buyer or provide a replacement vehicle of comparable value.
24-5-13-11
(a) If a refund is tendered under this chapter with respect to a vehicle that is not a leased vehicle, the refund must be the full contract price of the vehicle, including all credits and allowances for any trade-in vehicle and less a reasonable allowance for use.
(b) To determine a reasonable allowance for use under this section, multiply:
(1) the total contract price of the vehicle; by
(2) a fraction having as its denominator one hundred thousand (100,000) and having as its numerator the number of miles that the vehicle traveled before the manufacturer’s acceptance of its return.
(c) The refund must also include reimbursement for the following incidental costs:
(1) All sales tax.
(2) The unexpended portion of the registration fee and excise tax that has been prepaid for any calendar year.
(3) All finance charges actually expended.
(4) The cost of all options added by the authorized dealer.
(d) Refunds made under this section shall be made to the buyer and lien holder, if any, as their respective interests appear on the records of ownership.
24-5-13-11.5
(a) If a refund is tendered under this chapter with respect to a leased motor vehicle, the refund shall be made as follows:
(1) The lessee shall receive all deposit and lease payments paid by the lessee to the lessor, including all credits and allowances for any trade-in vehicles, less a reasonable allowance for use.
(2) The lessor shall receive:
(A) the lessor’s purchase cost, including freight and accessories;
(B) any fee paid to another to obtain the lease;
(C) any insurance premiums or other costs expended by the lessor for the benefit of the lessee;
(D) sales tax paid by the lessor; and
(E) five percent (5%) of the amount described in subdivision (2)(A);
less the total of all deposit and lease payments paid by the lessee to the lessor, including all credits and allowances for any trade-in vehicle.
(b) To determine a reasonable allowance for use under this section, multiply:
(1) the total lease obligation of the lessee at the inception of the lease; by
(2) a fraction having as its denominator one hundred thousand (100,000) and as its numerator the number of miles that the vehicle traveled before the lessor’s acceptance of its return.
24-5-13-12
(a) If a vehicle is replaced by a manufacturer under this chapter, the manufacturer shall reimburse the buyer for any fees for the transfer of registration or any sales tax incurred by the buyer as a result of replacement.
(b) If a replaced vehicle was financed by the manufacturer, its subsidiary, or agent, the manufacturer, subsidiary, or agent may not require the buyer to enter into any refinancing agreement concerning a replacement vehicle that would create any financial obligations upon the buyer less favorable than those of the original financing agreement.
24-5-13-13
Whenever a vehicle is replaced or refunded under this chapter, the manufacturer shall reimburse the buyer for necessary towing and rental costs actually incurred as a direct result of the nonconformity.
24-5-13-14
A buyer has the option of retaining the use of any vehicle returned under this chapter until the time that the buyer has been tendered a full refund or replacement vehicle of comparable value. The use of any vehicle retained by a buyer after its return to a manufacturer under this chapter must, in cases in which a refund is tendered, be reflected in the reasonable allowance for use required by section 11 of this chapter.
24-5-13-15
(a) A reasonable number of attempts is considered to have been undertaken to correct a nonconformity if:
(1) the nonconformity has been subject to repair at least four (4) times by the manufacturer or its agents or authorized dealers, but the nonconformity continues to exist; or
(2) the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of any nonconformity for a cumulative total of at least thirty (30) business days, and the nonconformity continues to exist.
(b) The thirty (30) business day period in subsection (a)(2) shall be extended by any period of time during which repair services are not available as a direct result of a strike. The manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer shall provide or make provision for the free use of a vehicle to any buyer whose vehicle is out of service by reason of repair during a strike.
(c) The burden is on the manufacturer to show that the reason for an extension under subsection (b) was the direct cause for the failure of the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer to cure any nonconformity during the time of the event.
24-5-13-16
(a) A manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer may not refuse to diagnose or repair any vehicle for the purpose of avoiding liability under this chapter.
(b) A manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer shall provide a buyer with a written repair order each time the buyer’s vehicle is brought in for examination or repair. The repair order must indicate all work performed on the vehicle including examination of the vehicle, parts, and labor.
24-5-13-18
It is an affirmative defense to any claim under this chapter that:
(1) the nonconformity, defect, or condition does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the motor vehicle; or
(2) the nonconformity, defect, or condition is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification or alteration of the motor vehicle by the buyer.
24-5-13-19
This chapter does not apply to any buyer who has not first resorted to an informal procedure established by a manufacturer or in which a manufacturer participates if:
(1) the procedure is certified by the attorney general as:
(A) complying in all respects with 16 C.F.R. 703; and
(B) complying with any other rules concerning certification adopted by the attorney general, including but not limited to the requirement of oral hearings, pursuant to IC 4-22-2; and
(2) the buyer has received adequate written notice from the manufacturer of the existence of the procedure.
Adequate written notice includes the incorporation of the informal dispute settlement procedure into the terms of the written warranty to which the motor vehicle does not conform.
24-5-13-20
This chapter does not limit the rights or remedies that are otherwise available to a buyer under any other applicable provision of law.
24-5-13-21
A buyer may bring a civil action to enforce this chapter in any circuit or superior court.
24-5-13-22
A buyer who prevails in any action brought under this chapter is entitled to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended by the attorney, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer for or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of the action.
24-5-13-23
(a) An action brought under this chapter must be commenced within two (2) years following the date the buyer first reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer.
(b) When the buyer has commenced an informal dispute settlement procedure described in section 19 of this chapter, the two (2) year period specified in subsection (a) is tolled during the time the informal dispute settlement procedure is being conducted.
24-5-13-24
Nothing in this chapter imposes any liability on a dealer or creates a cause of action by a consumer against a dealer, and a manufacturer may not, directly or indirectly, expose any franchised dealer to liability under this chapter.
24-5-13.5-1
This chapter applies to all motor vehicles that are sold, leased, transferred, or replaced by a dealer or manufacturer in Indiana.
24-5-13.5-2
As used in this chapter, “bureau” refers to the bureau of motor vehicles created by IC 9-14-1-1.
24-5-13.5-3
As used in this chapter, “buyback vehicle” means a motor vehicle that has been replaced or repurchased by a manufacturer or a nonresident manufacturer’s agent or an authorized dealer, either under this chapter or IC 24-5-13 by judgment, decree, arbitration award, settlement agreement, or voluntary agreement in Indiana or another state, but does not include a motor vehicle that was repurchased pursuant to a guaranteed repurchase or satisfaction program advertised by the manufacturer and was not alleged or found to have a nonconformity as defined in IC 24-5-13-6.
24-5-13.5-4
As used in this chapter, “buyer” means a person who, for purposes other than resale or sublease, enters into an agreement or a contract within Indiana for the transfer, lease, or purchase of a buyback vehicle.
24-5-13.5-5
As used in this chapter, “dealer” means a person engaged in the business of buying, selling, leasing, or exchanging motor vehicles. A person is a “dealer” under this section if the person sells, leases, or advertises the sale or lease of more than four (4) motor vehicles within a twelve (12) month period.
24-5-13.5-6
As used in this chapter, “manufacturer” has the meaning set forth in IC 24-5-13-4.
24-5-13.5-7
As used in this chapter, “motor vehicle” has the meaning set forth in IC 24-5-13-5.
24-5-13.5-8
As used in this chapter, “nonconformity” has the meaning set forth in IC 24-5-13-6.
24-5-13.5-9
As used in this chapter, “warranty” means:
(1) a written warranty issued by the manufacturer; or
(2) an affirmation of fact or promise made by the manufacturer, excluding statements made by the dealer;
in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle to a consumer that relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is free of defects or will meet a specified level of performance.
24-5-13.5-10
A buyback motor vehicle may not be resold in Indiana unless the following conditions have been met:
(1) The manufacturer provides the same express warranty the manufacturer provided to the original purchaser, except that the term of the warranty need only last for twelve thousand (12,000) miles or twelve (12) months after the date of resale.
(2) The following disclosure language must be conspicuously contained in a contract for the sale or lease of a buyback vehicle to a consumer or contained in a form affixed to the contract:
IMPORTANT
This vehle was previously sold as new. It was subsequently returned to the manufacturer or authorized dealer in exchange for a replacement vehle or a refund because it did not conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty and the nonconformity was not cured within a reasonable time as provided by Indiana law.
(3) The manufacturer provides the dealer a separate document with a written statement identifying the vehicle conditions that formed the basis for the previous owner’s or lessee’s dissatisfaction and the steps taken to deal with that dissatisfaction in 10-point all capital type.
24-5-13.5-11
Before reselling a buyback motor vehicle in Indiana, a dealer must provide to the buyer the express warranty required by section 10(1) of this chapter and the written statement of disclosure required by section 10(3) of this chapter and obtain the buyer’s acknowledgment of this disclosure at the time of sale or lease as evidenced by the buyer’s signature on the statement of disclosure.
24-5-13.5-12
A manufacturer who accepts return of a motor vehicle that is considered a buyback vehicle under this chapter shall do the following:
(1) Before transferring ownership of the buyback vehicle, stamp the words “Manufacturer Buyback A Disclosure on File” on the face of the original certificate of title.
(2) Not more than thirty-one (31) days after receipt of the certificate of title, apply to the bureau for a certificate of title in the name of the manufacturer and provide to the bureau a copy of the disclosure document required by section 10(3) of this chapter.
24-5-13.5-13
(a) A person who fails to comply with section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter is liable for the following:
(1) Actual damages or the value of the consideration, at the election of the buyer.
(2) The costs of an action to recover damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(3) Not more than three (3) times the value of the actual damages or the consideration as exemplary damages.
(4) Other equitable relief, including restitution, as is considered proper in addition to damages and costs.
(b) Actual damages under this section include the following:
(1) The difference between the actual market value of the vehicle at the time of purchase and the contract price of the vehicle.
(2) Towing, repair, and storage expenses.
(3) Rental of substitute transportation.
(4) Food and lodging expenses.
(5) Lost wages.
(6) Finance charges.
(7) Sales or use tax or other governmental fees.
(8) Lease charges.
(9) Other incidental and consequential damages.
(c) Lack of privacy is not a bar to an action under this section.
(d) This subsection does not apply to consent orders or stipulated judgments in which there is no admission of liability by the defendant. A permanent injunction, final judgment, or final order of the court obtained by the attorney general under section 14 of this chapter is prima facie evidence in an action brought under this section that the defendant has violated section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter.
(e) An action to enforce liability under this section may be brought within two (2) years from the date of discovery by the buyer.
24-5-13.5-14
A manufacturer or dealer who fails to comply with section 10, 11, or 12 of this chapter, as applicable to the manufacturer or dealer, commits a deceptive act that is actionable by the attorney general under IC 24-5-0.5-4 and is subject to the remedies and penalties set forth in IC 24-5-0.5.
Posted in Acronyms | 
Tags: agent or authorized dealer, under this chapter, under this section, used in this chapter | 
No Comments »
After showing the at the Paris auto show in September, Land Rover, as expected, used the occasion of the Los Angeles show to unveil the five-door version.
With 20-inch wheels and styling that eschews typical SUV tough-guy cues such as faux skidplates, the three-door and five-door are aimed at upscale urban drivers who aspire to but can’t quite reach the $60,495
. Dimensionally, the Evoque twins are the same except that the five-door is about one inch taller and rear-seat passengers get about two more inches of shoulder room in the more-spacious back seat.
As in the three-door, the five’s powertrain will be a 2.0-liter turbocharged direct-injection four-cylinder making about 240 hp paired with full-time all-wheel drive. The engine is from Ford’s new family of EcoBoost four-cylinders. The powertrain will make the Evoque twins the two most expensive four-cylinder vehicles on the U.S. market.
The Evoque uses the largely steel, front-drive-based car platform under the Land Rover LR2, although only about 30 percent of the parts are carry-over. The Evoque’s sportier stance and proportions required major changes to the body stampings and suspension, says Land Rover managing director Phil Popham. The three-door Evoque should come in around 220 pounds lighter than the 4250-pound LR2, the five-door about 154 pounds lighter, says Popham.
One crucial difference between the three- and five-door: under U.S. law, sport-utility vehicles with two passenger doors are subjected to a withering 25-percent import duty. The so-called “chicken tax” owes its name to a 1963 trade dispute with France and Germany when the U.S. placed the duty on some agricultural goods and trucks in response to European duties on American-sourced chickens.
Trucks were different then, but the duty remains on the books and the urban-chic three-door (two passenger doors plus one tailgate) Evoque will have to pay it, while the five-door Evoque will be exempt. So beyond rear-seat comfort, the biggest difference between the two body styles will be their profit margins for Land Rover.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q4/2012_land_rover_range_rover_evoque_five-door_official_photos_and_info-auto_shows
Our plan was to view Carl Mengel’s grave. Which sounds simple enough, except that Carl — a miner born in 1868, who staked several pitiful gold claims in the Panamint Range near Death Valley — was deeply enamored of reclusiveness, cotton-top cacti, and, uh,
altitude . His scrawny bones now repose at 4328 feet. Well, minus six or so feet.
Carl died calloused and penniless in 1944, after working himself to death in his California Oro Fino Mine in Goler Wash. It was a hellish locale, so unforgiving that a band of competing prospectors lasted only 90 days before hurling their huge anvil into a creek and fleeing to the lowlands.
Today, the Mengel Pass is a butt-busting trail with a Category Four rating. That means you’ll encounter rocks larger than six inches, mud, sand deep enough to require lowering tire pressures, stream crossings, narrow rock shelves, and loose surfaces. Uncomfortable but not technically tricky, at least until we were beset by a swell 55-mph wind mixed with sand, giving us the sort of visibility you’d enjoy after sticking your head in a goldfish bowl.
Our expedition leader was tech editor Aaron Robinson, a skilled off-roader who felt the rest of us might benefit from a day practicing on the Last Chance Canyon Trail near Randsburg, California. That trail slips past the pumice mine that made Old Dutch Cleanser famous. Good idea, we agreed, until Aaron casually cautioned, "Thing is, the Last Chance trail is a Category
Five ."
Five? We looked it up. Here’s how the book described it: "High-clearance 4WDs required, rough and rutted surfaces, rocks up to nine inches, mud and deep sand that may be impassable, 18-inch-deep stream crossings, steep climbs with traction problems, narrow shelf roads, steep drop-offs, tight clearances, possible chassis damage, novices sure to pee their pants." Well, maybe not that last part, although after we got started — on a trail so diabolical that a spotter was required every 100 or so feet — two of us did inquire whether anyone had packed a ration of Depends.
"You wanna concentrate on precise wheel placement," Robinson instructed, just as one of us high-centered the Toyota and had to be snatched backward off a craggy lump of granite the size of a major kitchen appliance. We weren’t as skilled as Robinson, so it was lucky we were ensconced in hardware that masked most of our maladroitness.
The idea for this test was sparked by the Hummer public-relaters, who swore their H3 was to off-roading what a Daisy Cutter is to Fourth of July firecrackers. "Only a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon can beat us," they boasted, "and we don’t compete with that." In the $30,000-SUV range, what the H3
does face, however, is the comprehensively reworked Nissan Xterra, now riding on a platform that underpins the Pathfinder and the burly Titan pickup. The H3 also faces the just-introduced 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, which makes the most of the 4Runner chassis, minus 3.9 inches of wheelbase. And it also seemed wise to include a Jeep Grand Cherokee of some stripe, in part because that’s what won our "Rock-Climbing SUVs, Size M" off-road comparo in April 2005. That Jeep, however, was fitted with a Hemi and the top-level Quadra-Drive II off-road package, jacking its base way north of 30 grand. So we backed down to a 4.7-liter V-8 mated to the less dear — and admittedly less capable — Quadra-Trac II. Presto, we had a fourth Mengel Pass contender that was fiscally appropriate. The Laredo came with a five-speed automatic, because that’s the only way Jeep builds ‘em. Our three other contestants were fitted with manuals.
How’d they pan out? Far,
far better than Carl’s little gold mine panned out.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/06q2/2006_hummer_h3_vs._2006_jeep_grand_cherokee_2006_nissan_xterra_2007_toyota_fj_cruiser-comparison_tests