2017 Mazda3 Touring 4dr Sedan on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cars we're thankful we drove in 2019

We drove a lot of cars in 2019, and there's still a month to go. We drove them in our home office in Michigan, at our remote offices in Seattle, Portland, Ore., and Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the globe on myriad press launches. We could count them, but hey, that seems boastful.  Instead, we want to be thankful. Not only for the opportunity to do this wonderful task some might describe as a "job," but for the new, shiny cars that brighten our days (and most hopefully yours). We asked our fellow editors which car they were most thankful to drive in 2019 ... here are our answers. 2019 Hyundai Veloster N Performance Senior Editor Alex Kierstein Every once in a while a car comes along that changes the narrative on a company or its segment, and everyone scrambles to experience it for themselves. This year, for me, that car’s the Veloster N Performance, perhaps the most transformative car the companyÂ’s ever built. Everyone whoÂ’s driven it, here and elsewhere, says it captures all those intangibles that make great driving hatchbacks great. And IÂ’m thankful that I got a go in it before all of them left the fleet, because it does. It upends the segment long dominated by the GTI, a car that nails its brief. The N is rowdy and loud, sure, but it also has some of the most deftly tuned suspension IÂ’ve come across in a front driver. My advice: if youÂ’re in the market for something fun and unique, go test drive a Veloster N. I think youÂ’ll be thankful you did. 2019 Hyundai Veloster N View 47 Photos 2019 Audi E-Tron Senior Editor, Green, John Beltz Snyder IÂ’m pleased that I got to drive the Audi E-Tron. ThatÂ’s high praise for a year in which I also drove the stellar Jaguar I-Pace. The E-Tron, while not as sporty as the Jaguar, is excellently executed, and feels like a more refined, polished offering. ItÂ’s quick, whisper-quiet, comfortable, stylish inside and out, and incredibly sturdy. Some may lament that it doesnÂ’t do much to stand out from ICE vehicles, but I donÂ’t think it needs to. What it does need to do is win over the electro-skeptical, and I think Audi put its best foot forward with a crossover that can do just that, and more. So, yeah, not only am I thankful that I got to drive it, IÂ’m glad that itÂ’s compelling enough that itÂ’ll hopefully make potential customers feel the same. 2020 Audi E-Tron View 13 Photos 2013 Peugeot 508 West Coast Editor James Riswick My choice totally sucks.

2019 Mazda CX-5 fuel economy takes a hit with new turbocharged engine

We learned all about the 2019 Mazda CX-5 last week, and now we've discovered fuel economy for its new 2.5-liter turbocharged engine. Unsurprisingly, it gets slightly worse fuel economy than its naturally aspirated counterpart. The 2019 turbo crossover, which only comes in all-wheel drive form, gets 22 mpg city and 27 mpg on the highway. Front-wheel drive CX-5s with the naturally aspirated 2.5 liter net you 25 mpg city and 31 mpg highway — all-wheel drive drops 1 mpg in both categories. For a little comparison, the turbocharged engine makes 250 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque on 93 octane gasoline, while the non-boosted engine makes 187 horsepower and 186 pound-feet of torque. You're definitely taking a hit in fuel economy, but the gain in power might be worth it, since the decrease isn't that terrible. Cars in its price and power range with all-wheel drive have comparable fuel economy. The Ford Escape with the 2.0-liter turbo is rated at 20/27; Chevrolet's Equinox with the 2.0-liter turbo is 22/28 and the VW Tiguan gets 21/29. There isn't really a clear winner in fuel economy for this much power when you look around the segment, but Mazda's engine is half a liter larger than everyone else. This translates to better torque than most of its competitors, but Mazda manages similar fuel economy. Also similar to many of these decked-out compact crossovers is the new high price of the Mazda we wrote about before. You won't be getting in to the turbocharged CX-5 for any less than $35,865. If you wanted a bigger Mazda like the CX-9, its fuel economy figures aren't significantly worse than the CX-5. Front-wheel drive versions are rated 22/28, and it drops 2 mpg in each category for all-wheel drive. The updated 2019 CX-5 should be coming to dealers soon. Related video: Featured Gallery 2019 Mazda CX-5 View 9 Photos Green Mazda Fuel Efficiency Crossover SUV mazda cx-5

Mazda3 five-door vs. Mazda CX-3

As a talking point, it won't rival North Korea, world hunger or Mideast peace, but the ongoing tug between car and crossover continues to resonate in the hallways of Autoblog HQ. And it might also generate some discussion on Mazda showrooms, where the Mazda3 five-door and Mazda's CX-3 crossover are parked within a few feet of each other. Not only do they enjoy proximity on the showroom, but they enjoy/suffer (your choice, depending on POV) pricing proximity on the window sticker. The Mazda3 five-door is the more mature model of the two, having been introduced to a world market in fall 2003. With a commonsense footprint enclosed by almost-organic, upscale sheetmetal, the Mazda3 – especially in 5-door form – punches well above its weight in the still-nascent hatchback category. With a redesign (third-generation) introduced in 2014, along with a more recent refresh, the newest sedan and hatchback merge Mazda's KODO design philosophy with a responsive platform, available 2.5-liter drivetrain and a comfortable – if not expansive – interior. What the Mazda3 5-door (photo at left) does not give you is the crossover's high hip point, despite having ground clearance almost identical to the CX-3 subcompact crossover. And while the stated passenger volume of the Mazda3 and CX-3 is almost identical, those cubes are arranged differently; the Mazda3 offers an interior package more linear, while the CX-3 is more upright. Mazda's subcompact CX-3 (photo at top) is a more recent entry, having been developed from the Mazda2 architecture and hitting the street two years ago. It sits below Mazda's CX-9 and CX-5 in the Mazda pecking order. And it is tiny, on a wheelbase of just 101 inches and offering an overall length of just 168 inches. It is seven inches shorter than the Mazda3, with a wheelbase five inches shorter. The net effect is a more compressed environment for passengers, along with the very real challenge of fitting something inside – such as a bicycle – even when that something has its front wheel removed. In the city, I like the CX-3's compactness, and relatively unrestricted visibility when compared to the Mazda3's overall length and lower seating. But when both are equipped with their six-speed automatics, and the Mazda3 is spec'd with its available 2.5 liter DOHC four, there's almost no comparison in their performance. With that spec the hatchback has Mazda's well-hyped zoom, while the CX-3 makes do with nothing but a 4-cylinder boom.