1995 Nissan Maxima Gle on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Least satisfying vehicle rankings seek to highlight the worst cars of the year

Consumer Reports polls its members on all sorts of topics related to how they buy and use products ranging from mobile phones to humidifiers for indoor plants. Cars are regularly one of CR’s most interesting topics, and its recent study on the least satisfying vehicles to own offers insights into the cars people wish they hadnÂ’t purchased. CR polled thousands of members with questions about what they liked and disliked about the vehicle theyÂ’d owned for a few years. When asked if they would definitely repurchase the same car, the following vehicles came back as the least likely to be purchased a second time: Kia Forte: 51% would buy again Nissan Altima: 51% would buy again Nissan Kicks: 49% would buy again Volkswagen Taos: 48% would buy again Kia Seltos: 48% would buy again Jeep Compass: 46% would buy again Mercedes-Benz GLA: 45% would buy again Infiniti QX50: 40% would buy again Mercedes-Benz GLB: 39% would buy again Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport: 38% would buy again When Autoblog tested the VW Atlas Cross Sport in March 2022, we liked the styling and the price was right, but it lagged rivals in driving excitement and interior quality. A number of recalls donÂ’t help the Cross SportÂ’s cause much, either, as some models have more than a dozen actions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Even the 2023 model already has four recalls. The annoyance of recalls and the hassle of just-average reliability ratings could have played into the Cross SportÂ’s place as the least satisfying vehicle. On the other end of the spectrum, the Chevrolet Corvette earned the top spot as CR's most satisfying car. The Porsche 911, Rivian R1T, Ford Maverick Hybrid, and Hyundai Ioniq 5 round out the top-five most satisfying vehicles to own. Given the rabid following the 911 has built over the years and the insane performance Chevy derived from the latest Corvette, itÂ’s not surprising to see them in the top spots. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Green Infiniti Jeep Kia Mercedes-Benz Nissan Volkswagen Car Buying Used Car Buying Consumer Reports worst cars

US approves extradition of Americans accused of arranging Carlos Ghosn's escape

In the latest chapter of ex-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn's dramatic downfall, two Americans are about to face Japan's notoriously tough justice system. The US State Department has approved the extradition of Michael and Peter Taylor, who are accused of helping Ghosn flee Japan, reports the Associated Press. Ghosn was under house arrest in Japan, awaiting trial for alleged financial malfeasance during his tenure as head of Nissan and the Renault-Nissan Alliance. In December 2019, Michael Taylor (pictured), a former member of the US Special Forces, and his son Peter, allegedly smuggled Ghosn out of Japan in a musical instrument case on two charter flights, from Japan to Turkey, and then from Turkey to Ghosn's childhood home of Lebanon. According to the AP, the Taylors received two payments from the Ghosn family totaling $1.36 million (one to Peter Taylor's company and the other in cryptocurrency). Michael Taylor ran a business security firm after retiring from the US Army. The Taylors have been in jail in Massachusetts since their arrest in May. A Federal judge was attempting to block the extradition request from Japan, but on Wednesday, the State Department overruled her, the Taylors' lawyers said. Ghosn, for his part, maintains his innocence and says that he fled Japan because he didn't expect a fair trial in Japan's court system, which has a 99.9 percent conviction rate. Unless this saga takes another unexpected turn, the Taylors will now have to face that very system. Government/Legal Nissan Renault

How Nissan's NYC Taxi of Tomorrow has turned into a nightmare

"Why can't we have competition? Why did the city think there had to be exclusivity?" – Taxi Association Nissan's takeover of the lucrative New York City taxi market hasn't exactly gone according to script. An agreement that should have seen the company become the exclusive supplier of taxis for the next ten years has resulted in nothing but headaches, controversy and legal challenges, despite the $1 billion deal between the Japanese marque and the Big Apple. The opposition to the Nissan deal has been fierce since day one, Automotive News reports in a sweeping writeup of the Taxi of Tomorrow saga, with the Greater New York Taxi Association – which represents nearly a third of the city's taxi owners – putting up a fight against the new van cabs. Whether it's the monopolistic nature of the Nissan deal – as we said, under the terms of the deal Nissan would become the sole distributor of taxis for New York cabbies – the NV200 taxi's limited reliability record, or concerns over the company's ability to supply the cabs, the Taxi Association has fought tooth and nail against the so-called Taxi of Tomorrow, AN reports. "Look, Nissan is a good company. And the NV200 is not a bad car. If it turns out that people like it, then great – they should be able to sell them here," Ethan Gerber, an attorney for the Taxi Association told Automotive News. "But why can't we have competition? Why did the city think there had to be exclusivity? It stifles competition and stops innovation." "Why couldn't we just have standards for the taxi, and if Toyota and Ford wanted to offer an identical vehicle that might be somehow better or more competitive, why can't they?" Gerber asked. "Obviously, there is always disappointment, but I trust that there is fairness." – Carlos Ghosn The biggest source of opposition, though, focused around how the NV200 was approved in the first place, because it doesn't subscribe to one of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's requirements for the next-generation taxi – that it would be available as a hybrid. It was that last point that initially got Nissan in trouble with the courts. In May 2013, New York County Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton ruled the deal void, declaring that cab operators were free to shop for non-Nissan hybrids, though cab owners still had to go through Nissan if they wanted a standard, gas-powered taxi. Or, they would have.