2006 Toyota Camry C on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Russian videographer nails this real-life 'Need for Speed' recreation

Aaron Paul and Kid Cudi tried. They really did. They put forth a decent acting effort, played with some incredible replica supercars, and filmed at some remarkable settings. But it's 2019, and 2014's "Need for Speed" sits at a 6.5/10 on IMDB, a 39 on Metacritic, and a 57% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. The studio attempt to bring "Need for Speed" to life was lukewarm, so a Russian videographer took a shot at the idea with this impressive digital short. Unearthed by Reddit user, AbuDab1, the clip is the work of Russia-based videographer @Chekunov_v. Clearly a fan of all things fast and fancy, as seen by his Instagram, Chekunov recreated the start screen, the garage with car and mod selection, and the race sequences from the video game. The video starts with an Acura RSX Type-S (labeled as the Integra Type R) with familiar theme music playing in the background. Accompanied by video game sound effects, the spotlight switches between a Toyota Celica, a Toyota Supra and a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. The Supra and Evo are locked, so the user settles on the Celica. He goes on to select mods, including a new spoiler, new wheels and a new color, again to the tune of the proper sound effects, menus and camera views. The car exits the garage and rolls onto the road, where the screen now shows a tachometer and an N2O gauge. The Celica is met with a race challenge, and the car lines up with a Mazda RX-8, an Acura RSX Type-S and a Subaru WRX STI. After a terrible launch, the Celica uses some NOS and takes the victory. Unfortunately, the video is a bit 2 fast, 2 short for our taste. It's well done, has some unique video work, and takes us back into one of our favorite video game series. Maybe this guy can direct the studio sequel.

Toyota says no one wants a Toyota electric car

It's no secret that Toyota doesn't really have a heart in pushing pure electric vehicles. The very limited Scion iQ EV project was killed before it went very far and the RAV4 EV project with Tesla was always only meant to produce just 2,600 units, but it didn't even get that far. In short, by all public appearances, Toyota just doesn't see the value of a pure EV. "No one is coming to our door asking us to build a new electric car." – Toyota's Craig Scott Toyota's public reasoning for the lack of a Prius C EV, for example, has often been that customers don't want to compromise on range and that hydrogen is a better bet. Company executives like Bob Carter say so over and over again. A new comment by Craig Scott, Toyota's national manager of advanced technologies, says that the Japanese automaker, give a slightly different spin on things. "Toyota actually favors fuel cells over other zero-emission vehicles, like pure battery electric vehicles," he told the Los Angeles Times. "We would like to be still selling cars when there's no more gas. And no one is coming to our door asking us to build a new electric car." This, understandably, has riled up a lot of EV supporters, many of whom have called on all automakers to sell more electric vehicles. After all, if Nissan can sell around 3,000 EVs a month in the US, couldn't Toyota do something similar? Are there thousands of people coming to the door asking for the fuel cell sedan that Toyota will start selling in the US next year? That answer is unclear, but it certainly doesn't look like Toyota is backing off its H2 bet any time soon.

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.