2004 Mazda Mpv Es Mini Passenger Van 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mazda leads Consumer Reports' latest Brand Report Card Rankings

The latest automaker brand report cards from Consumer Reports are in, and there are quite a few changes for 2021. At the very top of the charts sits Mazda, up three spots over last year, followed by BMW and Subaru to round out the top three. It's interesting to note that mainstream brands (non-luxury in CR-speak) don't seem to be at a disadvantage in CR's rankings, with five of the top 10 spots. In addition to Mazda in first and Subaru in third, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler, and Buick were the other high-ranking non-luxury marques. The ratings are derived from "a combination of predicted reliability, and owner satisfaction based on member surveys, and CR’s hands-on analysis" and also includes safety features and crash test scores.  At the very bottom of the list sit Mitsubishi, Land Rover and Alfa Romeo. "Our brand rankings don't just look at how models perform on our test track, but the broad picture of vehicle quality," said Jake Fisher, Senior Director of Automotive Testing at Consumer Reports. "Fortunately, consumers will find they have many options that are safe, enjoyable, and reasonably priced." The biggest jumps in the brand report card rankings come from Chrysler, Buick and Honda, which each moved up five spots compared to last year's rankings. The news wasn't nearly as good for Lincoln, which fell an alarming 15 spots this year, Genesis, which fell 13 spots, or Kia, which fell 10 spots. Related Video:

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.

Mazda G-Vectoring Control makes driving better without you knowing

Mazda has just spent eight years developing a new technology that will make its new cars a lot more fun to drive, even if you have absolutely no idea that it's working. And subtlety's the point, Mazda engineers told us at a press event at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca. In fact, the effects of what they've dubbed G-Vectoring Control are so fine that the marketing and PR teams are at a loss for how to do their jobs with it. "The engineers have done their work," said Mazda Director of Communications Jeremy Barnes, "But how do we get the message across?" The basic premise is this: G-Vectoring activates only when the car's on-board computer reads simultaneous steering and throttle input. The data — including throttle position, steering angle, and, crucially, how quickly you're adjusting the steering angle — are then funneled through an algorithm to reduce engine torque, which transfers vehicle weight, adding more grip to the wheels that need it. The system will appear first on 2017 Mazda6 sedans arriving in showrooms later this year, followed by the 2017 Mazda3. Actually, "subtle" does not even begin to describe the effect. G-Vectoring Control can detect as much as one tenth of one degree of steering angle, and changes the cornering forces only 0.1 to 0.5 g as a result. "That's less than the human body can feel," explained Vehicle Development Engineer Dave Coleman. In practice, G-Vectoring reduces the steering angle at turn-in, as well as the rate at which one turns the wheel. To demonstrate, Director of R&D Kelvin Hiraishi rode shotgun with us in a specially equipped Mazda6 that allowed him to turn G-Vectoring on or off at the push of a button (production cars will always have it on). Hiraishi had us drive a number of courses, including Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca itself, while an engineer measured our steering inputs with a laptop Matrix'd into the car's electronic brain. I drove the same course several times with the same car in the same conditions, with cruise control locked and the system turned on or off. Lo and behold, with G-Vectoring activated, the engineer's output graph showed that my steering inputs were indeed reduced ever so slightly. There were two times that G-Vectoring was markedly noticeable. The first on a turn with a minor banking toward the outside, and the second was during cornering over an artificially wet section of the course — in other words, when the car was at the limits of adhesion.