2014 Toyota Camry Le on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Most reliable cars and trucks of 2022

Related: Least reliable cars and trucks of 2022   For years now, Consumer Reports has been one of the most prolific sources of vehicle reliability data around. The organization tests a number of vehicles each year and surveys its members on various automotive topics, including reliability. The results of its 2022 annual auto survey are in, and the list of most reliable vehicles has been revealed. Unsurprisingly, Toyota and Lexus dominated the list of most reliable vehicles, but BMW and Mini snuck into the top 10 as well. The list includes: Toyota Corolla Hybrid: 93 Lexus GX: 91 Mini Cooper: 89 Toyota Prius: 89 Mazda MX-5 Miata: 85 Lincoln Corsair: 82 Toyota Corolla: 81 Subaru Crosstrek: 80 BMW 3 Series: 80 Toyota Prius Prime: 77 In terms of the most reliable vehicle type, Consumer Reports says that sedans remain the best choice. Their average score is 58, which is notably better than SUVs’ average score of 51. Minivans and pickup trucks are lower, at 44 and 39, respectively. As Consumer Reports notes, many sedans are older models that have allowed their manufacturers to iron out the wrinkles, making them more reliable. Domestic automakers' SUVs and trucks performed better in the survey than their imported counterparts, with scores of 45 and 41, respectively. The study also showed that hybrids and plug-in hybrids are becoming more reliable, and have climbed the score ladder to the tops of their segments in many cases.  Consumer Reports says its study includes 17 trouble areas, including small stuff like creaks and rattles and much larger problems like drivetrain failures. The organization states that it weights each issue based on its severity to create its predicted reliability scores, with 100 being the best. A car must be in production for at least two model years to be considered for the list. Related video: Green BMW Lexus Lincoln Mazda MINI Subaru Toyota Car Buying Maintenance Ownership Convertible Coupe Crossover Hatchback SUV Hybrid Sedan Consumer Reports reliability

2019 Toyota Sienna AWD vs 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid | New meets old

The Toyota Sienna has always been an inconspicuous van. They're out there, there's a lot of them and they're huge, but they blend in with darn near everything. Perhaps Toyota noticed that a little while ago and slapped on the slightly garish grille/not a grille plastic thing in the front bumper, but it still doesn't really stand out. On the other hand, our long-term Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, which is a great deal newer than the Sienna, has slick styling that gets noticed. Toyota hasn't properly redesigned the Sienna since the 2011 model year, and it shows on every front. Despite its many shortcomings, there are still some valid arguments for going with the dinosaur. Ride and handling Of all the reasons to choose a Sienna over the much newer competition, available all-wheel drive has to be the main one. My tester was so equipped, and I got a chance to test it out in both snow and ice. Obviously, the first thing I did in powder was see if the rear end would break loose. I can confirm that with traction control off, the Sienna will slide around a little bit. You won't be doing any sick drifts, but it's undoubtedly more fun than our Pacifica. The Chrysler is fitted with Nokian Hakkapelitta winter tires. As you might guess, this means that braking and grip around corners is better than the Sienna in snow. If the Sienna were to ditch its slippery all-seasons for a proper set of winters, it would be running circles around the Pacifica. Still, I drove our Pacifica through a lake effect blizzard in Buffalo and it never blinked from lack of traction with multiple inches of snow on the ground. Some folks are going to want the assurance of all-wheel drive, and the Sienna will offer it, but don't make it your only option. All-wheel drive might help you get going, but winter tires are there to save the day when sledding gets tough. What impressed most about the Sienna was its ride quality and composure. This van earned its road warrior status on my drive to the Chicago Auto Show from Detroit. The long highway trek was handled without issue by the big minivan chassis. Bumps and road imperfections were soaked up well. Noise wasn't much of an issue either, something minivans can struggle with given the massive amount of space in the cabin ripe for vibrations and rattles. However, an uncomfortable seat led to some soreness after over four hours in the saddle. No matter how I adjusted the lumbar, it didn't seem to take to my 5'10" slim frame.

New Toyota Mirai videos continue questionable hydrogen claims

"Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint." Toyota has released a number of new promotional videos for the hydrogen-powered 2016 Mirai. Most are exactly what you'd expect: pretty, full of promise and vaguely informational. But there was one line in the Product Introduction video that caught out ear. In the Product Information video about the Mirai, the narrator goes into a short history of Toyota's green car advances. After talking about the Prius and the Prius Plug In, making EVs for urban commuting and the rest of Toyota's advanced fuel programs, we hear this: "Never satisfied though, Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint, one that took its lead from nature itself." You can watch the video (and four others) below. Plug In America co-founder Paul Scott told AutoblogGreen, "Show us the math! Toyota claims the FCV has a smaller carbon footprint than their EV, but every paper I've read indicates the FCV uses 3-4 times as much energy to travel a given distance as an EV. If they are making this claim, let's call them out to prove it. Show us the math!" There's some math that comes out in favor of EVs here and here. "BEVs and FCs have a very similar carbon footprint, dependent on fuel source." – Toyota's Jana Hartline Plug-in vehicle advocate Chelsea Sexton went further. "Assuming appropriate comparisons in energy feedstock, basic science doesn't support the notion that the footprint of an FCV is smaller than that of an EV," she told AutoblogGreen, explaining that "appropriate comparison" would mean using similar energy generation methods for both hydrogen and plug-in vehicles. Not the tendency, she noted, "of H2 fans to compare FCVs based on solar-based electrolysis to EVs running on coal-bases electricity and similar shenanigans." Besides, Sexton said, "focusing purely on efficiencies entirely misses the biggest struggles that FCVs face in the market, namely fuel price, inconvenience, and market fear, even if the vehicles themselves are initially subsidized.