Nissan's Best Selling Suv! Rogue on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler, Nissan minivans earn 'dire' crash test results, says IIHS [w/video]

First introduced in 2012, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small-overlap frontal crash test has become the bane of many auto engineers' existence. It's a particularly steep design challenge because it forces just 25 percent of a vehicle's front end to take the brunt of a 40-mile-per-hour impact. The newly released results of four family-minded minivans underscore just how difficult the crash test is: only one scored an Acceptable rating, and the other three did very poorly. The 2008-2015 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan, plus the 2011-2015 Nissan Quest, all received Poor ratings in the test, the IIHS' lowest possible score. The three of them showed significant crash intrusion into the driver's area. The dummy in the Nissan actually had to be cut out of the vehicle, with an IIHS spokesperson remarking, "the structure collapsed like a house of cards." In the Fiat Chrysler Automobile vans, the steering wheels moved out of the way, making the airbag less effective and letting the driver's head hit the dashboard. While it was not actually crashed, the agency is also giving the 2009-12 Volkswagen Routan a Poor score because it shares a structure with the FCA models. The newly released results of four minivans underscore just how difficult the small-offset crash test is. The refreshed 2015 Toyota Sienna (shown), conversely, earned an Acceptable rating and is also a Top Safety Pick+ because of its optional forward collision warning and automatic braking system. While the crash test dummy moved around during the impact more than the agency would have liked, sensors showed a low risk of injuries. The IIHS tested the Honda Odyssey last year, and it earned a Good overall score, the agency's best ranking. It's also a Top Safety Pick+ vehicle. The only member of the minivan segment left to test is the latest Kia Sedona, and the Institute is reportedly waiting a little longer for Kia to make changes to improve the model's performance. When reached for comment, Nissan spokesperson Steve Yaeger provided Autoblog with the following statement: "Nissan is committed to vehicle safety and believes that consumers should have information about crash protection so they can make educated buying decisions. Nissan is proud of the 2014 Quest's "good" rating in the IIHS front moderate overlap and side impact tests as well as a "good" head restraint rating.

2015 Nissan 370Z Nismo

If you blinked, you missed the opportunity to pick up the last iteration of the 370Z Nismo, because after just a touch over a year of availability, Nissan is replacing it with this updated 2015 model - the third 370-based iteration from the brand's in-house tuner. Consider this version to be the 370Z's swan song. An all-new version is expected soon with a downsized turbo mill (something in the vein of a 240Z would not be impossible). That reality aside, the latest 370Z Nismo is a compelling package. It looks like a million bucks, takes a corner with verve, and gets belated tech goodies. Here are our impressions from a drive we took last week near Nissan's US headquarters in Tennessee.
Driving Notes
The Recaro seats are wonderful (shocker!). In fact, the interior in general has a much more strapped-down feel about it. A run-of-the-mill 370Z feels pretty great, although it's not a place for the big-boned. As with past Nismos, upgrades include contrasting colors on the faux-suede seat inserts, the gauge hood, the ten and two positions on the steering wheel, and a red centering stripe on the wheel. The upgraded materials are all nicely chosen and the cabin is a very sexy place to live - weirdly practical, too, considering the huge cargo area. Checking the "Tech" model option box brings a 7.0-inch nav screen in place of the upward swinging door over a storage cubby, a much-needed backup camera, an impressively good Bose stereo, and de riguer Bluetooth connectivity with audio streaming. Everything seems to work as advertised.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.