2003 Toyota Highlander on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

Toyota, Ford decide to end hybrid collaboration before it starts

Not all so-called Memorandum of Understanding pacts end in actual collaborations. For instance, after a two-year "feasibility study," Toyota and Ford have just announced that they will not be developing hybrid systems for use in light trucks and SUVs as previously planned, and the two automakers will instead continue to develop their own hybrid technology independently.
The would-be collaboration was first announced in August of 2011, and would have seen a rear-wheel-drive hybrid platform that would "improve the efficiency of trucks and SUVs while still allowing them to be driven in the way customers expect," according to our initial post on the topic.
Keep in mind that this announcement isn't to say we shouldn't expect hybrid pickups and SUVs from the two automakers, but that they probably aren't coming very soon - Ford says it will have a system "before the end of this decade" and we haven't heard much from Toyota on the hybrid truck front since the 2008 A-BAT Concept (pictured above) - and that they will not share any components between them (and they never have, for what it's worth).

IIHS gives good ratings to 4 of 8 midsize pickups in crash test

Versions of the Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Crew Cab earned top ratings in a new crash test of midsize pickup trucks from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, while two versions of the Nissan Frontier earned marginal ratings. But the organization gave poor marks to all eight pickups tested for their dim headlights. Overall, four of the eight pickups evaluated earned good ratings for protecting occupants in all five crash test categories — the Tacoma double cab along with crew cab versions of the Colorado, Canyon and Tacoma. But the poor headlights and lack of an automatic emergency braking system blocked any of the pickups from qualifying for the IIHS's Top Safety Pick awards. The study looked at two pickup body styles using 2017 models: crew cabs, which have four full doors and two full rows of seating, and extended cabs, which have two full front doors, two smaller rear doors and compact second-row seats. It subjected each to five tests, and it evaluated the performance of front crash prevention systems and headlights. The Toyota Tacoma crew cab was the only pickup in that class that earned a good rating for structure in the small overlap test, which replicates what happens when a vehicle clips a tree, pole or another vehicle that has crossed the center line. The model's Access Cab extended-cab version was rated similarly, though its structure was rated acceptable. "This group of small pickups performed better in the small overlap front test than many of their larger pickup cousins," says David Zuby, the Institute's executive vice president and chief research officer. "The exception was the Nissan Frontier, which hasn't had a structural redesign since the 2005 model year." The extended-cab versions of the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon earned acceptable ratings, while both the Nissan Frontier king-cab and crew-cab models were rated marginal. Toyota says its 2018 Tacoma will feature upgraded headlights and a standard autobraking system that can detect pedestrians. "Headlights are basic but vital safety equipment. Drivers shouldn't have to give up the ability to see the road at night when they choose a small pickup," Zuby said. Related Video: Auto News Chevrolet GMC Nissan Toyota Safety Truck Videos gmc canyon nissan frontier chevrolet colorado