One Owner Leather Power Doors Cd Player Rear Air Climate Control 3rd Row (8994a) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2018 Nissan Kicks vs other tiny crossovers: How they compare on paper

Update: As we now have now driven the 2018 Nissan Kicks and have all the specs and figures available, we thought it was time to update this comparison post. The data chart has been updated with final Kicks information as well as changes to competitors made for 2019. Anyone else have "Pumped Up Kicks" by Foster the People stuck in their heads? Well, you do now. I couldn't be the only one. Anyway, the 2018 Nissan Kicks is a thing. It replaces the Nissan Juke, which Mr. Stocksdale thought was a bad idea and Mr. Myself thought was a smart idea. Nevertheless, neither of us were especially pumped up by the Kicks. However, the majority of car buyers are all about SUVs, and this littlest segment of them has been multiplying like Tribbles in the past few years. The Juke was one of the first of these subcompact crossovers, but it was probably too oddball for a mainstream audience (not to mention inefficient) and never really caught on. Newer competitors certainly didn't help. Well, to see how the Kicks compares to those very competitors, lets fire up the Autoblog Comparo Generator 3000 (TM). Specifically, we'll be looking at those subcompact crossovers with similarly small dimensions, especially low prices and/or a disinclination to offering all-wheel drive. We're talking about the Nissan Kicks vs the Toyota C-HR, Hyundai Kona, Kia Soul, Honda HR-V and Jeep Renegade. Now, if you're interested in literally the exact opposite SUV segment, check out our recent Mercedes G-Class comparo. Otherwise, on to the spreadsheet: Dimensions and passenger space In terms of exterior dimensions, the new Kicks is right smack in the middle of the segment. It's virtually the same as the Honda HR-V, yet manages to eek out a few extra cubic feet of cargo space behind its raised back seat. The Honda and its "Magic Seat" still beats it in terms of maximum capacity, but it sure is close. The Kia Soul has the biggest maximum number, but that's largely the result of being a box. Its small behind-the-back-seat cargo number is likely a better indicator of how much you'll be dealing with on a day-to-day basis. And in that day-to-day way, the Kicks is excellent. Backseat legroom seems to be a Kicks downside, as all but the C-HR surpass it. (Seriously, it's almost impressive how large the C-HR is on the outside but cramped inside.) However, the Kicks' tall greenhouse not only allows for ample headroom, but seats that are mounted high off the ground.

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Mugen works up 2014 Honda Fit

It turns out the Mugen really is fast. Just yesterday we got our first official look at the JDM version of the all new Honda Fit. In both Hybrid and minty-fresh RS trim, the Japanese Fit is more complexly surfaced and angular than in any of the previous generations. Mugen has apparently been working with the new Fit body for a while, as the tuning house has just released some images and information about parts for the new hatchback.
Suddenly the original Honda styling seems somewhat restrained.
Mugen has crafted body kit parts to work with both the Hybrid and RS models, right from go. Though detailed information is still a little sparse, we're told that parts include: two types of front spoilers, a bumper and a chin spoiler, side skirts, and a carbon fiber rear wing (for the RS).