2005 Honda Odyssey Mini Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports says these are the worst new cars of 2014

Consumer Reports has announced its annual list of worst vehicles, a cringe-inducing contrast to its list of top vehicles. Ignominiously leading the way in 2014 is Chrysler, which has a staggering seven models listed.
Jeep nearly sweeps the small SUV segment by itself, with its Compass, Patriot and 2.4-liter version of the new Cherokee, while the only midsize sedans listed by CR were the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger. The new Dodge Dart and the Dodge Journey round out CR's condemnation of Chrysler.
Ford is taking heat as well, with the Taurus, Edge and their counterparts from Lincoln all listed as the worst vehicles in their respective segments. Toyota doesn't fare much better, with its Lexus IS, Scion iQ and tC also making the list.

A tough choice: 2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5

One has to feel for the typical new-car buyer. The one not reading Autoblog and the one who recognizes a V8 as vegetable juice. For them, picking between compact crossovers must seem like choosing between various identically sized cardboard boxes. Which one do you want? "Ah, I'll take the one with the best deal." Except, with the 2017 Honda CR-V and now the 2017 Mazda CX-5, Joe P. Everyman has a chance to choose between two vehicles that are quite clearly different, yet also clearly leaders in what they do. Everything else seems like alternatives based on price or perhaps off-road readiness (Jeeps Compass and Cherokee, perhaps a Subaru Forester). As scheduling would have it, a 2017 CR-V Touring just happened to be sitting in my garage the week I was set to drive the new CX-5 Grand Touring in San Diego. This isn't a complete, scientifically enacted comparison test, but there was enough drive time in close succession on the same roads and with similar price tags to draw conclusions. At its simplest, the CX-5 is the best choice for the driver while the CR-V is the best choice for everyone else aboard. That's not to say they are myopic in those classifications – the CX-5 could still ably handle family duty, while the CR-V is impressively well-rounded to drive in a way that shouldn't turn off those seeking some driving involvement. However, each has a clear focus that sets it down a different path toward different target buyers. Let's start with the newer kid on the block from Mazda. It is best suited for the person whose life changes have dictated the switch from an agile car to some sort of family hauler. Its spot-on steering and throttle response evoke Porsche, while the six-speed automatic transmission favors performance over fuel economy (while still getting really good fuel economy). Those dynamic elements, plus a carefully crafted, ideal driving position should make the CX-5 feel "just right" for those used to more sporting, non-family-oriented transport. Inside, the latest CX-5 boasts a handsome, upscale design with materials to match. Aesthetically, to these eyes at least, it's the best of a crowded bunch. Quality-wise, only the also-impressive CR-V would seem to come close. Along with the slick new exterior, the cabin conveys the more premium vibe that Mazda was shooting for with the new CX-5 – it also makes a more emotional connection than the typical cardboard box on wheels.

Hyundai-Kia claims 'greenest' title from Honda, Big Three still big losers

Let's start with the good news. On average, any new car you buy in the US today will be 43 percent cleaner than any average new car in 1998. Here's some more good news, for Korea anyway, Hyundai-Kia has been named the cleanest automaker in the latest study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which looked at 2013 model year vehicles sold between October 2012 and September 2013 from the top eight automakers (by volume). The bad news? The big three Detroit automakers are, on average, still making the dirtiest cars in the showroom. The big three Detroit automakers are, on average, still making the dirtiest cars in the showroom. The problem for Ford, General Motors and Chrysler lies in their trucks, which sell well but tend to have pretty bad fuel economy (compared to sedans, at least). The UCS calculates its list by averaging "the per-mile emissions for each light-duty vehicle sold by each automaker" and then factors in "the fuel economy, fuel type, and sales volume of each type of vehicle sold by each automaker" and "the upstream global warming emissions from producing and distributing the fuel used by each vehicle, as well as emissions from the vehicles themselves." That all means that, the more trucks you sell, the worse you're gonna do. Then again, the more trucks you sell with 18 mpg, the more you're helping drivers put CO2 into the air, so the UCS is doing a fair comparison of the things that this study is trying to track. More details on the methodology are available on page six of the study PDF. In case you were wondering (we were), UCS did make sure to use the revised mpg numbers for Hyundai and Kia models that were originally overstated. Hyundai has apologized for and fixed those figures and even with the new, corrected numbers, Hyundai's total emissions are dropping at a rate of about three percent a year, enough for it to take the greenest company title for the first time. In fact, this is the first time that an automaker other than Honda has come out on top in the UCS ranking, which has been released six times now, including the first one in 2000 (which looked at 1998 model year data). In 2010, Honda was almost knocked off the winner's perch by both Hyundai and Toyota, but managed to hold on. Chrysler, on the other hand, came in dead last (again) in the ranking of the top eight automakers, snagging the "dirtiest tailpipe" award once (again). Read the UCS' press release below.