-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
 |
|
Video: Our testers land in hot water—here's the story
Homeowners who need to replace their water heaters have more choices these days and an array of incentives makes those options not only attractive but affordable. Recently we tested three types of water heaters—solar, tankless and hybrid—to see how well they perform their primary task and at what cost.
We put some shiny new solar panels on the roof of our Yonkers headquarters to heat water and then stored it in tanks below. The solar heaters shone when the sun did and are good for the environment. But they're expensive to buy and install and payback time can take 20 years.
Tankless water heaters sound good because they heat just the water you need when you need it. But our testers found that they're not an economical or practical choice for most people.
Under the right circumstances, a hybrid water heater (a storage tank with an added pump that extracts heat from the air) can be a good choice and a consumer can realize savings in years rather than decades. But they're tall—about 7 feet—and you'll need ample space to capture enough heat from the air.
We didn't test conventional heaters but if you're considering one we recommend at least a 9-year warranty because those models tend to have thicker insulation and are better at resisting corrosion. For more information, read the full report from the October issue of Consumer Reports.
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Average gas prices--September 6, 2010
Gasoline prices are down in most areas of the country compared to the week before. The national gasoline average is $.09 above the price this time last year. Diesel fuel is about $.28 above this time last year.
|
National regular gasoline prices |
Price |
Change from last week |
|
Regular gasoline/gallon |
$2.68 |
0 |
|
Diesel fuel/gallon |
$2.93 |
↓ .01 |
| Regional regular gasoline prices |
|
East Coast |
$2.60 |
↓ .01 |
|
—New England |
$2.66 |
↓ .02 |
|
—Central Atlantic |
$2.62 |
↓ .02 |
|
—Lower Atlantic |
$2.56 |
0 |
|
Midwest |
$2.67 |
↑ .04 |
|
Gulf Coast |
$2.52 |
↓ .01 |
|
Rocky Mountain |
$2.82 |
0
|
|
West Coast |
$3.00 |
↓ .04 |
|
—California |
$3.04 |
↓ .05 |
Source: Energy Information Administration, 9/6/10. Figures rounded to the nearest cent.
For more information on saving fuel see our reports on how to get the best gas mileage and where to find the cheapest gas and more in our guide to fuel economy.
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Hartz dog treats recalled for possible salmonella contamination
 Hartz is recalling 74,700 bags of Hartz Naturals Real Beef Treats for Dogs because they may be contaminated with salmonella. The 8-ounce bags have lot code BZ0969101E, UPC number 32700-11519. They were imported from a Brazilian supplier. The company has received no reports of animals or humans becoming sick. Don’t feed these treats to your dog. The company's recall notice says to dispose of the product in a proper manner, which we presume means in a way that pets can’t get to them. You can contact Hartz at 800.275.1414 for information on how to get a refund.
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Video: To test this sweeper, we let the fur fly
Talk about a pet project. To test the claims of the Pledge Fabric Sweeper for Pet Hair, Bernie Deitrick, a program leader at Consumer Reports, enlisted his mixed-breed dog Jade and tabby cats Rexy and Precious.
First, for the purpose of comparison, Deitrick tried a trio of other products. Scotch’s adhesive Lint Roller and the similar Pet Hair Roller both did a workmanlike job of picking up hair from couches, chairs, carpets, pillows and the cats’ favorite resting places. But the sheets were quickly matted with fur, requiring Deitrick to frequently pause and peel off one sheet to expose the next. The sticky Scotch Fur Fighter Hair Remover has a slightly different design but it also required peel and re-stick breaks.
With the Pledge Fabric Sweeper’s non-adhesive twin roller, Deitrick was able to collect more fur for longer periods and without overly disturbing Rexy as she lolled nearby. And although Pledge says the Sweeper is disposable, it was easy to clean and reuse by just unsnapping a roller and removing the collected hair. So we took the Pledge.
For $5.59, the Pledge Sweeper might be all you want. But if you need to unleash more cleaning power, check our Ratings of upright, canister and handheld vacuum cleaners (available to subscribers), which note the models that excel at an even tougher pet-hair removal tests.
—Gian Trotta
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Video: Chevrolet Camaro vs Ford Mustang V6 - More and less than the sum of their parts
Let me say up front that I've never been a muscle-car kind of guy. I've always put handling finesse before horsepower, and in waking states a BMW M3, Volkswagen GTI, or a Porsche makes my heart beat faster than a Chevrolet Camaro or Ford Mustang. But deep inside I've had a soft spot for those American icons ever since I got my first ones, in a slot car racing set sometime in the early 1970s as a pre-teen. Now that we've just finished testing the latest V6 versions of the Camaro and Mustang, let me reflect. Even after all these years, those two pony cars still exert some kind of elemental animal attraction.
The V6 versions, which screen out the distractions thrown up by the rumble, torque and oversized tires of the V8 models we tested last summer, actually allow for a purer perspective on the underlying cars. (Read the full 2009 muscle and sporty car test, available to online subscribers.)
Taking the Ford first, it's clear the folks in Dearborn continue to improve the Mustang breed. Despite mechanical throwbacks like a live rear axle, it drives like a champ: alert, responsive, agile and ready for action. The shifter is a delight, and the 3.7-liter V6 sounds satisfying and pulls strongly. However, the switch to electric power steering that came with the 2011 model year has blunted some of the feedback it had previously. (Privately, some Ford engineers I've spoken with agree with that judgment.) But the electric steering is still quick, linear, and well-weighted and it contributes to average fuel use of 24 mpg - not too shabby for a 300-hp machine. And if the need for speed trumps your green sentiments, the Mustang GT packs a 412-hp, 5.0-liter V8, which brings a terrific sound and, at $36,000, is a performance bargain.
Now consider the Camaro. It was derived from the rear-drive Pontiac G8, a sedan that's held in universal high esteem by driving enthusiasts because of its sophisticated chassis and impeccable road manners. The Camaro employs the G8's basic hardware, but it fails to excite the driver. The steering response and feel is not fitting with a sporty car. The high belt line makes it tough to see out in any direction, which effectively blinds you to the outside world, let alone the next corner. The 312-hp V6 version feels limp and uninvolving to drive. Throw in tall gear ratios, a balky shifter, and the 275-pound weight disadvantage compared to the Mustang, and you find yourself saying, "This car might as well be an automatic." If you are already yawning, I'm not blaming you.
So while the Camaro may boast a more impressive spec sheet, with state-of-the-art this and that, on the road it amounts to less than the sum of its many precision parts. Conversely, the ostensibly cruder Mustang delivers on a level that surpasses the sum of its parts.
Read our Camaro vs Mustang Face Off, and research the Camaro and Mustang in our model overview pages, where you'll find full performance data, photos, videos, owner cost information, and much more. (See our Dodge Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang video shootout from 2009.)
Now if only I could find my old slot-car set... —Gabe Shenhar
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
[Full text iSaveSmart NewsstandWire]
The curtain is about to fall on the incandescent light bulb. While their use is already being phased out elsewhere in the world, 2012 marks the beginning of the end for them here in the United States. Thanks to regulations passed in 2007, the ubiquitous 100-watt bulb will exit the scene in January of 2012, with other wattages going dark until January 2014, when the 40-watt incandescent bulb will dim and fade from memory. Don't panic, though — there's no need to stock up on oil lamps and candles. Instead, light sources using a variety of different, more efficient technologies are already on the market, and new, improved ones are on the way. The spectrum of options can be explored in our updated comprehensive report on light bulbs. New bulbs, burning bright For many, a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), will fill the bill. Prices on these bulbs have dropped dramatically, they're very energy-efficient, and designs are available that will fit most if not all existing light fixtures. Not everyone is pleased with the quality and color of the light given off by CFLs, but improvements have created lamps that compete very nicely with incandescent bulbs. A major drawback is that these bulbs contain a small amount of mercury, and many are concerned about issues that could ensue if one breaks. The latest information from consumer organizations and other sources indicate this may not be a serious threat, however. We address this matter in our report section on CFLs, and provide a number of useful third-party links as well. Halogen bulbs are another choice. While dimmable CFLs are now available, halogen lights remain a better choice for use with dimmers since cycling won't affect their life span. There's also no mercury to be concerned over. Halogen bulbs are far less efficient than CFLs,however, saving only 30 percent of energy compared to the 75 percent that CFLs can deliver. LED is a promising technology, but the most exciting developments are still to come. New bulbs promise to do a better job of spreading light more evenly, and to drop the cost of LED bulbs from very expensive to merely expensive. On the other hand, LED bulbs carry rated lifetimes ranging up to 20 years, easing the initial sting (as long as the bulb doesn't burn out prematurely). For the complete rundown on the best light bulbs, head over to our newly-updated full report.
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Citibank's required credit-card "upgrade" feels like a downgrade to us
Federal credit card reform has improved life for some cardholders, including preventing card issuers from increasing rates on existing debt in most instances. But it hasn’t stopped all the shenanigans. Recently, for example, Citibank told customers of its Dividend Platinum Select MasterCard card that they were being upgraded, in most cases to its Citi Dividend World MasterCard.
What does upgrade mean? Partly, it means card holders no longer will receive an automatic 2 percent cash back on purchases made at supermarkets, drugstores, gas stations, convenience stores, and utilities. Instead, they get at least 2 percent cash back on categories that change every quarter. It’s currently a nice 5 percent on car rentals and hotels. But wait! The incentive isn’t applied automatically, as it was with the old card. Instead, you have to sign up by phone or online every quarter. Forget, and no additional cash back for you!
Why not just sign everyone up automatically? Citibank says that requiring cardholders to sign up allows it to assess the interest in the offers.
“This enables us to gauge the success of these promotions and tailor them to customer interests in the future," a Citibank spokesman told us. But Curtis Arnold of Cardratings.com suggests a different motive. “I think they know a lot of folks aren’t going to opt in every quarter,” he told us. “It’s too much of a hassle.” We’ve seen Chase employ this gotcha for its cards too.
So what other upgrade surprises does Citibank have for its Dividend cardholders? With the old card, Citibank didn’t pay the rebate until the cardholder accumulated $50 and then requested a check for whatever cash had been earned at that time. (Discover recently lowered its minimum to $20). The process is the same for the new card, but now Citibank will send a check for no more than $50. And what happens to the remaining balance if you close the account? You lose it.
A Citibank spokesman acknowledges that one reason for this is that Citibank is trying to get customers to keep the card. “It further helps to enhance customer engagement and retention, as there is a tangible reason for customers to continue using the card,” the spokesman said.
It’s notable that Citibank feels it has to threaten punishment to retain customers. Maybe Citibank should consider, instead, making the card the best one out there by getting rid of all the gotchas? That’s a better way to retain customers Bill Hardekopf of Lowcards.com thinks it unfair, too.
“If you close out your account, you should be able to redeem the full amount you earned,” he says. Why can’t Citibank and other card issuers simply send the entire accumulated amount automatically or, better yet, credit them to your account monthly, as Citibank does, for example, with the Citibank Sunoco MasterCard? The Citibank MasterCard Citi Dividend World MasterCard does give owners of the previous card some additional benefits, such as price protection, trip cancellation/trip interruption coverage, and lost luggage coverage. But for some, those perks may count for little compared to the new gotchas.
And there’s one more gotcha. In issuing the new card, Citibank changed the card numbers. Now cardholders have to provide their new numbers to any companies that automatically bill to their cards. If you forget, you could end up with late charges, credit report dings, or even fines. That’s not what I call an upgrade.—Anthony Giorgianni
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
Video: Our testers land in hot water—here's the results
Homeowners who need to replace their water heaters have more choices these days and an array of incentives makes those options not only attractive but affordable. Recently we tested three types of water heaters—solar, tankless and hybrid—to see how well they perform their primary task and at what cost.
We put some shiny new solar panels on the roof of our Yonkers headquarters to heat water and then stored it in tanks below. The solar heaters shone when the sun did and are good for the environment. But they're expensive to buy and install and payback time can take 20 years.
Tankless water heaters sound good because they heat just the water you need when you need it. But our testers found that they're not an economical or practical choice for most people.
Under the right circumstances, a hybrid water heater (a storage tank with an added pump that extracts heat from the air) can be a good choice and a consumer can realize savings in years rather than decades. But they're tall—about 7 feet—and you'll need ample space to capture enough heat from the air.
We didn't test conventional heaters but if you're considering one we recommend at least a 9-year warranty because those models tend to have thicker insulation and are better at resisting corrosion. For more information, read the full report from the October issue of Consumer Reports.
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
-
Consumer Reports >>
Consumer Reports
|
|
The new issue is here! Energy savings and new ratings
 It's not that Americans aren't trying to be more energy efficient. In Consumer Reports' recent survey of 1,536 U.S. homeowners we found that 81 percent bought energy-efficient lightbulbs, 44 percent had purchased an Energy Star appliance and 43 percent caulked their windows and doors, among other good deeds. Why did they do this? To lower their energy costs, reduce the impact on the environment or to take advantage of a rebate or credit.
We also learned from experts and consumers that being energy efficient is harder than it should be. Though the Energy Star program has saved people billions in utility bills, it should and could deliver even greater savings, as our lab tests continue to show. And government rebate programs, designed to encourage energy-efficient choices, are too complicated and confusing for many consumers. In the October issue of Consumer Reports, online and on newsstands today, we outline things the government can do to help consumers and things you can do to help yourself. We also have new Ratings of lightbulbs and space heaters and a report on water heaters.
Lightbulbs
The compact fluorescent bulbs in our labs have been cycling on and off since early 2009, or 6,000 hours. For comparison, a typical incandescent bulb lasts only around 1,000 hours. Even after all that time, brightness and warm-up times remained virtually the same as after 3,000 hours of testing. Our results were confirmed by an outside lab. See our new Ratings (for subscribers) of spiral, indoor flood/ reflector, outdoor flood/ reflector and porch/ post covered bulbs.
We're also keeping our eye on the latest generation of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which claim to rival the look, dimming ability, and light quality of incandescents; contain no mercury (as CFLs do); and last up to five times longer than CFLs and 50 times longer than incandescents.
Space heaters
Practically any heater can help make a chilly room more inviting. Our latest tests show that the best do that more consistently, conveniently, and safely than ever for as little as $60—not the hundreds you can spend on a fancy infomercial model. We focused on electric heaters, the best-selling type by far. There are 13 models in our Ratings and we recommend five of them. If you're considering a space heater, remember that portable space heaters cause an estimated 21,650 home fires and 1,512 fire-related injuries and deaths each year so you should follow these safety precautions.
Water heaters
As recently as last year, replacing a broken water heater meant paying a few hundred dollars for a relatively inefficient storage-tank unit or spending thousands to eke out energy savings with a solar or tankless system. But smarter new heaters are changing that. Three we tested saved enough energy to pay for their roughly $2,000 cost in about five to seven years rather than decades. Known as hybrids, they have a conventional electric storage heater paired with a heat pump that extracts heat from the air and uses it to help heat the water. Check out the payback time for hybrid, solar and tankless water heaters. You can also save with the right conventional water heater.
|
|
Subscribe now!
Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
|
|
Update your feed preferences
|
|
| Join iSaveSmart.com on Twitter
