Suv 4.0l Cd Am/fm Radio Mp3 Decoder Air Conditioning Rear Window Defroster on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid vs other hybrid crossovers | How they compare on paper

The long-anticipated 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid was announced yesterday, and although we don't have every spec available (including the all-important official fuel economy figures), Honda provided enough that we can piece together a comparison of powertrain specs and dimensions. The same can be said of the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid, which we just drove for the first time.  Together, they represent a significant increase in the number of compact crossover hybrids, as the current total is one: the 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. The old Nissan Rogue Hybrid has been discontinued, leaving the subcompact Kia Niro Hybrid as the only other vehicle in the ballpark. As you'll see below, its size and performance are much different than the others, but its fuel economy and price are superior.  Performance The RAV4 Hybrid is the performance champ of the group, but both it and the new CR-V Hybrid are actually more powerful than their respective gas-only siblings. Although the added weight of its battery pack negates much of that horsepower advantage, the RAV4 Hybrid's subsequent acceleration is indeed a smidge quicker than the gas-only version. It will be interesting to see if that's the case with the CR-V. By contrast, the Ford Escape offers a 250-horsepower 2.0-liter turbo engine, meaning the hybrid variation is most definitely not the Escape's highest-performance offering. Nevertheless, the Hybrid does produce more power than the base 181-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder. The Niro, meanwhile, brings up the rear in terms of performance, but Kia estimates a perfectly acceptable 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds. The others are likely in the mid-7-second range. Fuel economy This is ultimately an open question since we don't have official figures for the CR-V and Escape. Based on Honda's estimate of the CR-V Hybrid being 50% more efficient in the city than the gas-only version, our calculators say it should get 43 mpg in the city. Then, based on information provided on the Escape Hybrid first drive and some more calculation, our best guestimate for it is 40 mpg. Either way, given how mpg is calculated, any potential differences between them in terms of actual fuel burned should be negligible.  On the other hand, most Kia Niros sold get 51 mpg in the city and 49 mpg combined. According to the EPA, that translates to an annual average fuel cost of $750. The RAV4 Hybrid, by contrast, is $900.  FWD vs AWD Note that the CR-V and RAV4 come standard with all-wheel drive.

Scion was slain by Toyota, not the Great Recession

Scion didn't have to go down like this. Through the magic of hindsight and hubris, it's easier to see what went wrong. And what might have been. What the industry should understand is this: Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. This is more than just the failure of a sub-brand. It's the failure of a company to deliver new and compelling products over an extended period of time. Toyota will point to the Great Recession as the reason it hedged its bets and withdrew funding for new vehicles, instead of using that as an opportunity to redouble efforts. This was as good as a death warrant, although myopically no one realized it at the time. Sadly, GM's Saturn experiment was a road map for this exact form of failure. No one at Toyota seemed to think the Saturn experience was worth protecting their experimental brand from. Or they weren't heard. Brands live and die on product. Somehow, Scion convinced itself that its real success metric was a youthful demographic of buyers. It seems like this was used to gauge the overall health of the brand. Look at the aging and uncompetitive tC, which Scion proudly noted had a 29-year-old average buyer. That fails to take into account its lack of curb appeal and flagging sales. Who cares if the declining number of people buying your cars are younger? Toyota is going to kill the tC thirteen years [And two indifferent generations ... - Ed.] after it was introduced. In that time, Honda has come out with three entirely new generations of the Civic. Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. At launch, the brand could have gone a few different ways. The xB was plucky, interesting, and useful – a tough mix of ephemeral characteristics – but the xA didn't offer much except a thin veneer of self-consciously applied attitude. That's ok; it was cute. Enter the tC, which managed to combine sporty pretensions with decent cost. It took on the Civic Coupe in the contest for coolness, and usually managed to win. More importantly, an explicit brand value early on was a desire to avoid second generations of any of its models, promising a continually evolving and fresh lineup. At this point, the road splits. Down one lane lies the Scion that could have been. After a short but reasonable product lifecycle, it would have renewed the entire lineup.