2009 Nissan Maxima S Sedan 4-door 3.5l Very Nice!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Nissan demonstrates GT-R LM Nismo's radical aero

Nissan took a radical approach in designing its GT-R LM Nismo, turning the usual LMP1 form on its head to create a rather unusual prototype. So why did it take such a drastic approach? In a word: aero. In designing a front-engined, front-drive Le Mans prototype, Nissan was able to free itself from many of the restrictions placed on aerodynamic development. So while the likes of Toyota, Audi and Porsche struggle to create as much downforce as the regulations will allow at the rear of their cars, Nissan is finding boatloads more at the front. It's an innovative approach if we've ever seen one, and you can see and hear the team explain how it all works in this latest video clip above.

2018 Ford Expedition vs other big SUVs: How it compares on paper

With our Alex Kierstein rightly impressed in his first-drive review of the new 2018 Ford Expedition, we decided to dig a little deeper into the numbers, and we came up with the spreadsheet below to highlight how the new 2018 Expedition compares on paper to its main full-size SUV competitors: the 2018 Chevy Tahoe and Suburban (and therefore the 2018 GMC Yukon), 2018 Toyota Sequoia and 2018 Nissan Armada. We also threw in the new, even bigger 2018 Chevrolet Traverse since, as you'll see, its massive dimensions should put it on the radar for anyone who needs loads of passenger and cargo space but doesn't care as much about towing. A few notes about the chart above. First, the 6.2-liter V8 that's included with the new-for-2018 Tahoe RST trim level is the standard engine on the GMC Yukon Denali. You can apply most of the Tahoe's numbers to the entire Yukon and Yukon XL lineup. Second, though we highlighted categories where the Traverse led, we also highlighted the runner-up full-size SUV, since this was ultimately about that segment. Traverse numbers are broadly applicable to the new Buick Enclave. Related Video: Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan Toyota SUV Comparison consumer ford expedition gmc yukon chevy traverse toyota sequoia nissan armada chevrolet tahoe ford expedition max

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.