2002 Mazda Tribute Es Sport Utility 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mazda working on lithium-ion batteries to replace lead-acid starter batteries

In the quest for ever better fuel economy, car companies are looking for every single advantage possible, no matter how small. This is evident in everything from active grille shutters to the 48-volt mild-hybrid electric assist systems like that in the new Ram 1500. For Mazda, the latest target for potential efficiency gains is the lowly 12-volt starter battery. The company announced that it is partnering with two other companies, ELIIY Power and Ube Industries, to develop a lithium-ion starter battery that would be used on mainstream models in place of conventional lead-acid units. Mazda plans to have them ready for use by 2021. The advantage here would be that 12-volt lithium-ion batteries would be much smaller and lighter than the lead-acid ones they replace. And lighter cars don't need as much fuel to move around. Plus, as an added benefit, making cars lighter also often makes them faster and better handling. This is why companies such as Lotus and Porsche have offered optional lithium-ion 12-volt batteries for some lightweight sports cars. A potential downside to the use of these batteries is increased cost. Lead-acid batteries from your local parts store will run you between $100 to $150. AGM batteries could be between $200 and $300. As for lithium-ion batteries, Lotus introduced the option on the Evora 400 in 2016, and the option cost $1,690. Odds are that a company such as Mazda won't be absorbing all those costs, meaning that the cost of these future Mazdas could increase with a change from lead-acid to lithium ion. Related Video:

Should you buy a leftover 2015 or a brand new 2016 model?

One of the most common questions I get asked as a car dealer and auto auctioneer is, "When is the best time to buy a new car?" The answer is usually the time period between Labor Day and the middle of November. That's because this is when new car dealers and the manufacturers are trying to get rid of their current-model-year vehicles to make way for a small army of 2016 models. Rebates, incentives, cheap financing, and overstocks of unpopular models all help create the liquidity needed to turn the old inventory into a new set of wheels for the buying public – often at a very reduced price. But sometimes the "old" new car isn't a better pick than the "new" new car. It depends on a lot of factors, including the car in question and the differences from one model year to the next. I recently received an email from Jeff, who is interested in the Mazda CX-9 and asks whether he should buy a 2015 model or wait for the new version that will debut soon in LA. I'll use his as the example case. Length of Ownership The longer you own a vehicle, the less model year depreciation will be an issue. For example, the difference in value between a five-year-old Mazda 6 and a six-year-old version is about $1,500 according to the Manheim Market Report ($5,600 vs. $4,100). But if you look at the difference between 10-year-old and 9-year-old versions of that same vehicle, the price difference shrinks all the way down to $200. Because Jeff plans to own his new crossover for many years, the 2015 model wins in this category. View 19 Photos Rebates and Incentives The current CX-9 has a $4,000 cash incentive from Mazda. This is in part because Mazda still has quite a few left over. That $4,000 rebate for the current model is already coupled with even stronger discounts at the dealer level for those leftover 2015 models. TrueCar is showing that a loaded 2015 model can be had for $7,000 off the sticker at $28,600. You may even be able to beat that price by negotiating the deal yourself. Another thing to consider is that new models tend to be in high demand when they launch, which means that your purchase price will likely be substantially higher with the new model than it will with a leftover 2015. Again, financially speaking, this is a vote for the 2015 model. New Stuff It's also important to weigh what new features will come along with the updated model and how important they are to you.

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.