1999 Toyota Solara Se Coupe 2-door 3.0l Manual Red Tan Xmnavtraffic Touch Ipod 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.

Which of these five plug-ins should win the 2017 Green Car of the Year?

It's going to be a competitive race for the 2017 Green Car Of The Year. With a minivan in the running for the first time in ages, the five finalists announced by Green Car Journal today include five very different plug-in vehicles. As Ron Cogan, the editor and publisher of Green Car Journal, said in a statement, "electrification is now considered by most automakers an essential technology for current and future high-efficiency models." Let's check out the list: Toyota Prius Prime, the updated plug-in version of the world's best-selling hybrid. Chevy Bolt, GM's all-new entry into the long-range EV game. Chrysler Pacifica, a family hauler with the ability to go 30 miles on electric power. Kia Optima. The nomination is for the full line-up, but really the hybrid and plug-in hybrid models are the green stars here. BMW 330e iPerformance, one of the automaker's many new plug-in hybrids that bring battery power to models outside the i sub-brand. Green Car Journal will announce the winners at the Los Angeles Auto Show on November 17th, along with some, "other green transportation announcements," whatever that means. Last year, the winner was the 2016 Chevy Volt, the first model to snatch up two wins. Which do you think should win this year? Related Video: News Source: Green Car JournalImage Credit: REUTERS/Kevork Djansezian Green LA Auto Show BMW Chevrolet Chrysler Kia Toyota Chevy Bolt chrysler pacifica green car of the year toyota prius prime bmw 330e

Legal approach in $1.2 billion Toyota settlement could impact handling of GM recall cases

In the past, if an automaker did something wrong, they were usually prosecuted by the US government through something called the TREAD Act. Short for Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act, it basically requires automakers to report recalls in other countries, along with any and all serious injuries or deaths, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Failing to report or attempting to conceal anything when there's been a death or serious injury constitutes a criminal liability. The idea is that this setup puts the onus on manufacturers to keep NHTSA apprised of safety related issues before they become a problem in the US, thereby allowing the regulator to better protect consumers.
In theory, it sounds like a relatively airtight set of rules for dealing with misbehaving automakers. That didn't stop the US Department of Justice from ignoring TREAD in its prosecution of Toyota's handling of the unintended acceleration recall, though. The result of this new approach, which charged Toyota with wire fraud, was a $1.2 billion settlement. Now, the wire-fraud approach could be used for the expected case between the US government and General Motors, based on the statements of Attorney General Eric Holder, who specifically mentioned "similarly situated companies" when discussing Toyota.