Car companies should use less puffery when describing the capabilities of their cars. Especially when I’m going to be testing one.

I was road-testing an Acura RL with Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS). The press material made me think CMBS would prevent a crash into a stopped car or other stationary object. (It doesn’t work on moving objects, at least the way I read the material.) The system uses a radar beam to allow the computer to assess “when a collision is possible.” Then, it gives an audible warning, tightens the seatbelts, begins light braking and, if the driver takes no action, fully applies the brakes. Apparently, I misunderstood “when a collision is possible.”

To better translate the press prose for the readers, I sought to discover when the system activated. As background, I’m fearless, especially in a car. I’ve been 200 mph in a road-going car, cornered at 200 mph in an Indy car, set the fastest lap of a 24-hour race at 5:30 a.m., and ridden with about 8,000 people as they spun out cars at 60 mph. I’ve jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, caught 80-pound catfish with my bare hands, and worked as a driving instructor for teens. More...

To those who write material for both auto company websites and press releases, allow me to quote the famous philosophers Paul Simon and Captain Beefheart, “Who do you think you’re fooling?”

Every car-company consumer website and media site I’ve seen proudly lists the safety features of their vehicles: electronic stability control (ESC), traction control, four-wheel anti-lock disc brakes (ABS), six airbags, tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), head restraints, LATCH child seat tethers, and more. The problem: All of these features are either specially mandated by the government’s Federal Motor Vehicle Standards (FMVSS), or are required to pass federal tests.

Listing these items is much like listing seatbelts and turn signals. Yeah, carmakers, we know your vehicles have them. Yet, some car companies actually list those items under safety features. “Hey Edith, did you know they’re putting seatbelts in all cars now? What’ll they come up with next?” I’m more frustrated by the car writers who cut and past these lists into their articles. (These journalists may not be getting paid to write these articles, so how much can I expect? I blame Arianna Huffington and those who volunteered to be slaves for the Huffington Post.)

Some of these safety features, such as ESC, are in the process of being phased in. About three-quarters of 2011 model-year cars must have ESC. All 2012 cars must be equipped with ESC. ABS and traction control are an integral parts of ESC: If a car has ESC, by definition it has ABS and traction control. Unless the car company thinks its ESC is better than the competition, or, for the 2011 model year, its cars have it when its major competitors lack it, why mention it? More...

If you have a vehicle built before 2001, or one that’s rarely driven, it has an alcohol problem. The latter group includes sports cars, collector cars, and cars owned by senior citizens.

Other motorized equipment—lawn mowers, chainsaws, boats, and motorcycles—have alcohol problems, too. The cause is the same substance that creates havoc in the lives of many humans: ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. (It was clear the vehicle-alcohol problem had become a national crisis when it came to the attention of the New York Times. New Yorkers think cars either are long and black, yellow with a little light on top, or white and blue with a roof rack of multi-colored lights. Normal people ride in back of all of them.)

Right now, about 70 percent of the gasoline pumped in the U.S. contains 10 percent ethanol. Soon gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol will appear on the market. This problem is personal. None of my vehicles were engineered to accept E15 and three weren’t designed for E10. Two of them aren’t driven enough to need to be refilled once a month.More...

My nomination for the Ugliest Ferrari Ever is the 512TR. I’m pretty sure that a requirement for ownership was that the buyer had to wear a largely unbuttoned shirt above an overly large paunch and a pawn shop-worth of gold chains dangling in graying chest hair.

Tasteless doesn’t being to describe the 512TR.

The over-the-top styling, highlighted by cheese-grater side strakes, was the epitome of the decadent 1980s. It’s surprising that it didn’t come with double-knit seat covers and a mini-disco ball hanging from the rearview mirror. The car debuted as the 512 Testarossa in the mid-1980s, was renamed the TR in the early ‘90s before being mericifully euthanized in the mid-‘90s.

Part of my prejudice is that the 512TR was the first Ferrari I drove. I was shocked at the poor fit and finish, the useless radio controls, the Renault Alliance-style ergonomics, its farm-tractor-like gearshift, and its imprecise handling. More...

The stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could or, maybe, should mean the death of electric cars and plug-in hybrids. That’s because the anti-nuclear lobby can now easily panic the public and politicians, ending hopes for an aggressive effort to build nuclear plants in the U.S. Without nuclear-generated power, all-electric cars and plug-ins aren’t dead on arrival, but they are almost useless on arrival.

If the U.S. doesn’t start a highest-priority effort to build nuclear plants, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will be ineffective at their core purpose: Reducing the use of carbon-based fuel.

Prior to Fukushima, rational environmentalists (including President Obama) supported nuke plants as an alternative to the natural gas and coal that account for roughly 70 percent of U.S. electricity production. Nuclear makes up another 20 or so percent. (You’re contributing to global warming when you plug in your Leaf or Volt. Granted, it’s easier to capture pollution at the coal- or gas-fired plant than at car tailpipes, but we’re still burning carbon-based fuel to make the electricity.)

The no-nukes crowd is portraying Fukushima as a catastrophic disaster. As this is written, it isn’t. Except, that is, for owner Tokyo Electric, the two plant workers who are missing and almost certainly dead, and those who live in a 20-mile arc who are being encouraged to leave their homes. Even if things worsen, Americans should feel safe with expanding nuclear power. Current U.S. nuclear plants are more-strongly built than the aging Japanese plant and lessons learned from Fukushima will be incorporated into new U.S. plants.

Regardless of facts, the no-nukes crowd will attempt to frighten the uninformed, just as they did with another nuclear plant non-disaster, the 1979 Three-Mile Island incident. For youngsters, more died in the back of Teddy Kennedy’s car than at Three-Mile Island.

How about other renewable energy sources touted by the anti-nuke crowd? There are winds farms that loudly blight the land, slaughter birds and insects and kill people during construction and maintenance. Solar is still deep in the research and development stage and would create its own environmental problems. How about tidal turbines in the ocean? Place them away from whales, dolphins, bluefin tuna, sailfish, Chilean sea bass, swordfish and other threatened species.

While I assert we should continue to dig for coal (and drill for oil and natural gas in the U.S. on- and off-shore), know that about 30 miners are killed each year in the U.S. Many older, former miners suffer from black lung disease. In other parts of the world catastrophes are far worse.

Without a huge increase in nuclear power, electric cars and plug-in hybrids will be best at moving pollution from big cities to the country. That’s where I live.