2014 Nissan Frontier Pro-4x on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Nissan Micra Cup First Drive [w/video]

A light mist falls on the Circuit Mont-Tremblant. Looming gray skies threaten that more wetness is in store. I'm already nervous about scooting a tiny Nissan around a challenging course in rural Quebec. This damp chill isn't helping. It's an unlikely day to drive an improbable racecar: the Nissan Micra, one of the smallest and cheapest cars sold in Canada. Luckily, the weather and my trepidation ease up. Laps around this gorgeous road course prove to be a lot of fun. The Micra isn't a bad little car, and racing them, well, that sounds like a riot. Nissan is using the time-tested tool of motorsports to raise the profile of its new subcompact with the Micra Cup, a spec series that launches with a pair of races the weekend of May 22-24. It will be followed by five more weekend doubleheaders through the summer and into the fall, including a support race before Formula One's Canadian Grand Prix in June. The investment for Nissan is low, and the six races will all be run in Quebec, a province with a European level of motorsports fervor. Despite the damp conditions, I'm eager for my turn to wheel the diminutive Micra around the Circuit Mont-Tremblant, a 15-turn, 2.65-mile course nestled in the Laurentian Mountains of Quebec. Don't be fooled by the idyllic setting, Mont-Tremblant hosted F1 grands prix in 1968 and 1970, Can-Am and Trans-Am races in the 1960s and 70s, and a Champ Car race as recently as 2007. Racing trim suits the Micra, and the car looks snappy dressed in red, white, and gray livery. I climb into the cabin and strap into the racing harness. It's easy to get comfortable in this basic interior. Nerves steadied, I grip the steering wheel, ease the Micra into first gear, let out the clutch, then shift to second and exit the pit lane. Thankfully I'm not the first guy to get out on the track in this car, so the tires are warm. The rain has stopped, but I'm cautious at first. The track surface is still a little slick, and the front-wheel-drive Micra's rear tires can easily come unbuttoned. As I lap the circuit, my confidence grows. My helpful instructor flashes three and four fingers from the passenger seat to indicate the gear I should be in, and then urges me to floor it in open areas. He's more confident than I am, but as I dart around the track, the adrenaline starts flowing. My peak speed is maybe 93 miles per hour, but that's not the point.

These EVs are the worst when it comes to depreciation

The Renault Fluence Z.E. tops the list of the worst depreciating cars according to a ranking compiled by Glass' Information Services, holding just 27.21 percent of its value after a year of ownership and 12,000 miles on the clock. Just as well that you can't buy the sedan anymore in either electric or ICE versions, since it was discontinued last year. This car took a particularly rough hit when Better Place declared bankrutpcy, since the electric Fluence was a specific fit for the aspirations of the battery-swapping company. The Citroen C-Zero hits the list at number four, the Nissan Leaf E at number five, both holding onto just a third of their value after a year. The C-Zero is a rebadged Mitsubishi i-MiEV, and if you bought one stock for the full UK on-the-road price of 26,766 pounds, you'd have a car worth 8,583.86 pounds twelve months later, according to Glass. We're not sure about the wording of the press release, though - it states that those three cars "lost more than three-quarters of their value." Yet the Fluence E Z.E. is the worst offender, and it doesn't dip below 25 percent of its original value. As with those electrics, the rest of the list is made up of aged or barebones ICE models, some of them touted elsewhere for their popularity. You can find the full list and the valuations in the press release below. ELECTRIC CARS AMONG WORST FIRST YEAR DEPRECIATORS Fluence, C-Zero and LEAF all lose more than three-quarters of their value 15/07/15 - Three electric cars are among the worst first year depreciators in a "Bottom 10" released by motor trade valuation market leaders Glass's. The Renault Fluence, Citroen C-Zero and Nissan LEAF E have all lost more than three-quarters of their value after covering 12,000 miles during the last 12 months. Rupert Pontin, head of valuations at Glass, said: "The motor trade and the used car buying public remain interested in electric cars but are still reticent to actually buy them in numbers – and these depreciation figures reflect that fact. "To be fair, these three EVs are among some of the least attractive on the market – the Fluence and C-Zero both have a 'last generation' feel while the LEAF E is on the bottom rung of the LEAF range – but their presence does reflect the fact that the EV sector remains sluggish." Other models in the list include the lowest-powered, entry level versions of some generally popular but aging models such as the Vauxhall Insignia and Renault Megane.

Full-size trucks are the best and worst vehicles in America

You don’t need me to tell you that Americans love pickup trucks. And the bigger the truck, the more likely it seems to be seen as an object of desire. Monthly and yearly sales charts are something of a broken record; track one is the Ford F-Series, followed by the Chevy Silverado, RamÂ’s line of haulers, and somewhere not far down the line, the GMC Sierra. The big Japanese players fall in place a bit further below — not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with a hundred thousand Toyota Tundra sales — and one-size-smaller trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger and Chevy Colorado have proven awfully popular, too. Along with their sales numbers, the average cost of new trucks has similarly been on the rise. Now, I donÂ’t pretend to have the right to tell people what they should or shouldnÂ’t buy with their own money. But I just canÂ’t wrap my head around why a growing number of Americans are choosing to spend huge sums of money on super luxurious pickup trucks. Let me first say I do understand the appeal. People like nice things, after all. I know I do. I myself am willing to spend way more than the average American on all sorts of discretionary things, from wine and liquor to cameras and lenses. IÂ’ve even spent my own money on vehicles that I donÂ’t need but want anyway. A certain vintage VW camper van certainly qualifies. I also currently own a big, inefficient SUV with a 454-cubic-inch big block V8. So if your answer to the question IÂ’m posing here is that youÂ’re willing to pay the better part of a hundred grand on a chromed-out and leather-lined pickup simply because you want to, then by all means — not that you need my permission — go buy one. The part I donÂ’t understand is this: Why wouldn't you, as a rational person, rather split your garage in half? On one side would sit a nice car that is quiet, rides and handles equally well and gets above average fuel mileage. Maybe it has a few hundred gasoline-fueled horsepower, or heck, maybe itÂ’s electric. On the other side (or even outside) is parked a decent pickup truck. One that can tow 10,000 pounds, haul something near a ton in the bed, and has all the goodies most Americans want in their cars, like cruise control, power windows and locks, keyless entry, and a decent infotainment screen.