2008 Toyota 4wd 4dr Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid vs other hybrid crossovers | How they compare on paper

The long-anticipated 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid was announced yesterday, and although we don't have every spec available (including the all-important official fuel economy figures), Honda provided enough that we can piece together a comparison of powertrain specs and dimensions. The same can be said of the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid, which we just drove for the first time.  Together, they represent a significant increase in the number of compact crossover hybrids, as the current total is one: the 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. The old Nissan Rogue Hybrid has been discontinued, leaving the subcompact Kia Niro Hybrid as the only other vehicle in the ballpark. As you'll see below, its size and performance are much different than the others, but its fuel economy and price are superior.  Performance The RAV4 Hybrid is the performance champ of the group, but both it and the new CR-V Hybrid are actually more powerful than their respective gas-only siblings. Although the added weight of its battery pack negates much of that horsepower advantage, the RAV4 Hybrid's subsequent acceleration is indeed a smidge quicker than the gas-only version. It will be interesting to see if that's the case with the CR-V. By contrast, the Ford Escape offers a 250-horsepower 2.0-liter turbo engine, meaning the hybrid variation is most definitely not the Escape's highest-performance offering. Nevertheless, the Hybrid does produce more power than the base 181-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder. The Niro, meanwhile, brings up the rear in terms of performance, but Kia estimates a perfectly acceptable 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds. The others are likely in the mid-7-second range. Fuel economy This is ultimately an open question since we don't have official figures for the CR-V and Escape. Based on Honda's estimate of the CR-V Hybrid being 50% more efficient in the city than the gas-only version, our calculators say it should get 43 mpg in the city. Then, based on information provided on the Escape Hybrid first drive and some more calculation, our best guestimate for it is 40 mpg. Either way, given how mpg is calculated, any potential differences between them in terms of actual fuel burned should be negligible.  On the other hand, most Kia Niros sold get 51 mpg in the city and 49 mpg combined. According to the EPA, that translates to an annual average fuel cost of $750. The RAV4 Hybrid, by contrast, is $900.  FWD vs AWD Note that the CR-V and RAV4 come standard with all-wheel drive.

Toyota, Honda, Nissan and more collaborating to increase fuel efficiency

Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Daihatsu have announced an alliance that will see a push to improve fuel economy from both gas-powered and diesel-powered engines by as much as 30 percent before the end of the decade.
The newly assembled Research Association of Automotive Internal Combustion Engines put the roughly $20-million project together, with the Japanese government committing to half the cost while the eight manufacturers will chip in the rest.
According to Automotive News, the automakers will team up and share basic research on internal-combustion engines in a bid to cut costs. Eventually, the results of the research will find its way into a production vehicle, although it's unclear just when we'll see the fruits of this partnership on the road.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.