Le Certified 3.5l Cd Towing Package (3 500lbs) 6 Speakers Am/fm Cd W/6 Speakers on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Italian coachbuilder wraps a modern-day Citroen van in a retro skin

Italian coachbuilder Caselani resurrected an obscure, often-forgotten model from Citroen's past to offer van buyers an additional retro-styled option. Called Type HG, it's based on the current-generation Citroen Jumpy. One of the French carmaker's best-known vintage vans is the Type H, which was built with only minor changes from 1947 to 1981. It's aged into a sought-after classic that's popular as a food truck and as a camper from Paris to Sydney. Few realize Citroen planned to release a smaller model named Type G which looked almost exactly like the H but used an air-cooled flat-twin engine shared with the 2CV. Several prototypes were made, but the project was canned in favor of the 2CV-based, nine-horsepower AU van released in 1951. It's this little-known prototype that only exists in Citroen's official heritage collection and in the minds of the most indoctrinated French car enthusiasts that Caselani chose to bring into the 21st century. And, because the Type G (shown below) was a shrunken copy of the Type H from a design standpoint, making a body kit that fits the Citroen Jumpy was relatively simple. Caselani liberally borrowed styling cues from its modern version of the Type H, which is based on the larger Citroen Jumper sold as the Ram ProMaster in the United States. It adds a new-look front end with a vertical grille, chromed chevrons, and round headlights positioned as far out of the body as regulations permit, corrugated body panels, and a redesigned rear end. Whitewall tires are optionally available. Caselani offers the Type HG as a passenger van, a crew-cab van, and a panel van. Pricing starts at 29,400 euros before taxes are factored in, a sum that represents about $35,000 and that corresponds to a short-wheelbase panel model powered by a 100-horsepower, four-cylinder turbodiesel engine. Alternatively, motorists who already own a Jumpy can purchase the transformation kit on its own for 14,800 euros (about $17,500). For added peace of mind, Caselani pointed out the conversion was created with Citroen's input, and the brand authorized the kit. We know what you're thinking: what on earth is a Jumpy? Glad you asked! It's a van positioned in the middle of Citroen's commercial range. It slots between the Berlingo, which competes in the same segment as the Ford Transit Connect, and the Jumper, which is marketed as an alternative to the Ford Transit.

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.