1987 Nissan 300zx 2+2 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

ROEV lets you use multiple charging networks with one account

It may be a textbook case of a first-world problem, but any EV driver who doesn't want to carry two or three plug-in vehicle charging station cards when one would do is about to get a little smile on their face. This morning at the LA Auto Show, the new ROEV Association was announced that will let EV drivers carry just the one card. While you would think the all-caps ROEV stands for something, none of the pre-announcement materials nor the website explain it that way. Instead, it seems to just be a play on rove, which makes a lot of sense. There are three charging networks involved in ROEV: Blink, ChargePoint, and EVgo. Conveniently, these are the three largest in the US and have a combined 17,500 public chargers across the country. If you've got an account with one of these three networks, once ROEV goes into effect (expected in the spring of 2016), you'll be able to use that card at any participating charger without signing up for another account. Your personal details are kept private, ROEV says, and the companies coordinate behind the scenes to make it work. Pricing details were not disclosed. Besides the three main charging networks, two automakers are also founding members of ROEV: BMW and Nissan. ROEV says that Audi and Honda have also have already joined the Association and the organization wants to pull in all EV stakeholders to make electric vehicle charging easy. Fans of EV technology will note that ROEV has nothing to do with promoting either the CHAdeMO or the SAE Combo (CCS) fast charging standard. The Leaf is a CHAdeMO car while the i3 uses CCS, for example. The charging networks, of course, provide both kinds of plugs and don't promote one over the other. Tesla and its Supercharger network are not involved in ROEV, but Tesla drivers can, of course, participate in ROEV.

Junkyard Gem: 1996 Nissan Quest XE with 338,549 miles

When I hit the junkyard, I always look for vehicles with impressive final figures showing on their odometers. I find so many Hondas and Toyotas with better than 300,000 miles that I don't consider them especially noteworthy (the exception being super-low-spec cheap models, such as a Tercel or Civic VX), and it goes without saying that the bar is quite high for Mercedes-Benzes as well. It has been surprisingly difficult to find discarded Nissans that made it past the 300k mark; today's Junkyard Gem is just the fourth I've documented. The highest-mile junked Nissan I'd found prior to today's minivan is a 1994 Maxima with 364,238 miles, followed by a 1987 Maxima with 341,176 miles and a 1986 200SX with 309,222 miles. Keep in mind that Nissan didn't go to six-digit odometers on most of its US-market cars until the early 1980s, and then went to tough-to-read-in-the-junkyard electronic odometers in the early 2000s; this means the pool of potential high-mile Nissans is limited to about the 1983-2000 range of model years. Ford has just as much right to claim credit to this van's impressive mile total as does Nissan, since the Quest was a collaboration between Ford and Nissan that also produced the Mercury Villager; this van was built by Ford at the Ohio Assembly plant. The Quest/Villager platform was derived from the Maxima's, and the engine is pure Nissan: a 3.0-liter VG30 V6 rated at 151 horsepower. The only transmission available in the first-generation (1993-1999) Quest/Villager was a four-speed automatic. This one appears to have been sold new at Landrum Nissan in Pueblo. The rear glass has been painted flat black, possibly to keep prying eyes from seeing valuable cargo. The rear seats are long gone, so this van probably hauled cargo for much of its long life. The front interior seems to be in good shape. Why is this van here? There's body damage on the left rear and right front, suggesting a crash that may have bent the suspension past the worth-fixing threshold. Perhaps the crinkled metal just made this van too unsightly, or maybe some powertrain problem was the culprit. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's time to expect more from a minivan. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's all fun and games until the toddler takes the wheel.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.