1969 Chevrolet Camaro on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Full-size trucks are the best and worst vehicles in America

You don’t need me to tell you that Americans love pickup trucks. And the bigger the truck, the more likely it seems to be seen as an object of desire. Monthly and yearly sales charts are something of a broken record; track one is the Ford F-Series, followed by the Chevy Silverado, RamÂ’s line of haulers, and somewhere not far down the line, the GMC Sierra. The big Japanese players fall in place a bit further below — not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with a hundred thousand Toyota Tundra sales — and one-size-smaller trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger and Chevy Colorado have proven awfully popular, too. Along with their sales numbers, the average cost of new trucks has similarly been on the rise. Now, I donÂ’t pretend to have the right to tell people what they should or shouldnÂ’t buy with their own money. But I just canÂ’t wrap my head around why a growing number of Americans are choosing to spend huge sums of money on super luxurious pickup trucks. Let me first say I do understand the appeal. People like nice things, after all. I know I do. I myself am willing to spend way more than the average American on all sorts of discretionary things, from wine and liquor to cameras and lenses. IÂ’ve even spent my own money on vehicles that I donÂ’t need but want anyway. A certain vintage VW camper van certainly qualifies. I also currently own a big, inefficient SUV with a 454-cubic-inch big block V8. So if your answer to the question IÂ’m posing here is that youÂ’re willing to pay the better part of a hundred grand on a chromed-out and leather-lined pickup simply because you want to, then by all means — not that you need my permission — go buy one. The part I donÂ’t understand is this: Why wouldn't you, as a rational person, rather split your garage in half? On one side would sit a nice car that is quiet, rides and handles equally well and gets above average fuel mileage. Maybe it has a few hundred gasoline-fueled horsepower, or heck, maybe itÂ’s electric. On the other side (or even outside) is parked a decent pickup truck. One that can tow 10,000 pounds, haul something near a ton in the bed, and has all the goodies most Americans want in their cars, like cruise control, power windows and locks, keyless entry, and a decent infotainment screen.

This map reveals the cleanest vehicles based on location

Naysayers love to point out how dirty the electricity grid mix is when it comes to charging electric vehicles. Curmudgeons are eager to jump into any conversation about EVs to enlighten the lucky listeners about how plug-in cars contribute to pollution, sometimes even throwing in a dash of climate-change denial for good measure. (Thanks, buddy. Pray, tell me more about the plight of oppressed SUV owners.) Unless someone buys an EV just because they think they're cool (which, yeah, they often are), they probably have at least a passable understanding of their environmental pros and cons. As many EV owners are already aware, location has a lot to do with any particular plug-in car's carbon footprint. Still, there's always more to know, and knowledge is not a bad thing, especially if one uses it to do the right thing. That's why this handy-dandy map from Carnegie Mellon University is so interesting. CMU researchers have compiled information about the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various EVs based on where they're charged, as compared to gasoline-powered vehicles. The researchers looked at the Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, and Prius Plug-In Hybrid versus the gasoline-dependent Toyota Prius hybrid and the stop-start-equipped Mazda3 with i-ELOOP and compared grams of CO2 emitted per mile. CMU takes into account the grid mix, ambient temperature, and driving patterns. CMU takes into account the grid mix based on county, as well as ambient temperature and driving patterns in terms of miles traveled on the highway or in the city. For instance, if you drive a Nissan Leaf in urban areas of California, Texas, or Florida, your carbon footprint is lower than it would be if you were driving a standard Toyota Prius. However, if you charge your Leaf in the Midwest or the South, for the most part, you've got a larger carbon footprint than the Prius. If you live in the rural Midwest, you'd probably even be better off driving a Mazda3. Throughout the country, the Chevrolet Volt has a larger carbon footprint than the Toyota Prius, but a smaller one than the Mazda3 in a lot of urban counties in the US. The Prius and Prius Plug-In are relatively equal across the US. Having trouble keeping it straight? That's not surprising. The comparisons between plug-in and gasoline vehicles are much more nuanced than the loudest voices usually let on.

Has Chevrolet gotten the formula right with the Malibu?

Since the Malibu's return in 1997, there has been an internal issue with Chevrolet with getting the midsize sedan formula right in its own way. Let's be frank, the Malibu had a boring beginning as a midsize sedan in 1997. We got the dreadful sixth-generation Malibu in 2004 that brought us an SS model that really didn't deserve the SS badge on it. Hell, its saving grace was fleet sales. But the tides seemed to shift when the seventh-generation Malibu came on the scene in 2008. With the determination of making the Malibu more competitive with other cars in its class, a lot of hard work and effort was put into making the seventh-generation Malibu a timeless and well-crafted vehicle. As an owner of a 2012 Malibu 1LTZ, I have to say that Chevy has fully accomplished it. I love the nicely designed exterior, the interior was comfy enough for those long trips to work each and every day, and it was a very quiet car in my opinion. And its fuel economy was decent, not too bad. The New York Times in 2008 referred to it as "A super Accord, but from GM." In some comparisons, the Malibu was ranked higher than the Honda Accord and the Nissan Altima. It also received the North American Car of the Year award. Love it or hate it, the seventh-gen Malibu was an overall big success for GM. But then in 2013 we got the eighth-generation Malibu. GM gave it a botched release, releasing an Eco model first (that was later discontinued), then later in the year GM released the regular Malibu models. Shifting to a new platform didn't help it either. Even though it separated it further from the Impala, which was built on the same platform as the last-gen Malibu, the shrinkage in legroom, its OK design language, and a poorly crafted interior helped contribute to its overall lackluster sales performance. Not to mention the cars in its class got 10x better than the Malibu as well. Just 18 months after the 2013 Malibu went on sale it received a mild refresh to try to help its OK design, but it didn't help at all. The fate of the eighth-gen Malibu was sealed early on. But wait, a new light came from GM early last year. It came in the form of the ninth-generation Malibu. I have to say, when the curtain came off of it last year, a huge sigh of relief came from me. To me it seemed that Chevrolet took that determination it had in crafting the seventh-gen Malibu and increased it this time around.