No Reserve 2002 Toyota Highlander V6 2wd 3.0l Auto One Owner Nice! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota Sienna vs Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid | Minivan comparison test

Shopping for a new car can be difficult due to the sheer number of choices. Which brand do you start with, which do you skip and are you missing something worthwhile? Thankfully, minivans are much simpler. There are effectively only four choices, they're all pretty good and they're even different enough to make choosing the right one for you a bit easier. This comparison features the two most recently updated minivans: the Toyota Sienna versus the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. Besides their common newness, they stand out in another fundamental way: they're both hybrids. Now, they're very different hybrids – the Toyota comes standard with a traditional gasoline-electric system like that of a Prius, whereas the Pacifica is offered with an optional plug-in hybrid system that provides an estimated 32 miles of all-electric range before effectively turning into a traditional hybrid – but in both cases, fuel economy is the priority. With the rare exception, the minivan segment has exclusively used V6 engines, which provide sufficient power to move hefty loads of people and stuff. The Chrysler Pacifica comes standard with a V6, while a V6 is the sole powertrain option for the Honda Odyssey and new 2022 Kia Carnival. The fuel economy difference between those and our hybrid competitors is staggering: The new Sienna gets an EPA-estimated 36 mpg combined while the Odyssey and V6 Pacifica get 22 mpg. That equates to saving an estimated $750 every year on gas, according to the EPA. And the Pacifica Hybrid could potentially save you even more as long as you routinely utilize its electric range. This frugality alone could send the Sienna and Pacifica Hybrid to the top of many shopping lists, but as we've seen in previous tests, they offer more than enough in other respects to warrant top consideration. But which is better, Sienna or Pacifica? Well, we knew this was going to be close, and we were right. After averaging the scores from 16 categories, the difference between first and second was a mere 0.06 out of 10. When we added extra weight to key minivan-buying attributes (second-row space/versatility, safety features and functionality, infotainment, interior storage, cargo space/versatility, value and fuel economy), the gap was only 1 point out of a possible 230. We then triple checked and conducted a recount, but the order remained. In the end, there are no losers here.

Porsche takes 2016 Le Mans win on last lap, Ford grabs class victory

So far, only one Japanese manufacturer has won the 24 Hours of Le Mans endurance race. That carmaker was Mazda exactly 25 years ago with the legendary, rotary-engined 787B. This year, Toyota was amazingly close to winning with their TS 050 car, piloted by Kazuki Nakajima, and it all ended in tears on the last lap. The Toyota ran smoothly for almost 24 hours, but to lose power and stall on the pit straight with five minutes to go is nothing short of catastrophic. Still, the #5 car was able to be restarted and limped across the finish line for 45th place. Toyota's #6 car had its own set of issues, as the car gained bodywork damage and also veered off track in the hands of Kamui Kobayashi. Driven to second place, the Toyota #6 passed the finish line driven by Stephane Sarrazin. For Porsche, the win with the #2 919 Hybrid was the 18th constructor title at Le Mans 24 Hours. The car was driven by Romain Dumas, Neel Jani and Marc Lieb, and it proved to be more reliable than the #1 919 with Timo Bernhard, Mark Webber and Brendon Hartley behind the wheel. The #2 Porsche and the #5 Toyota battled for the lead throughout the day. Had the Toyota not broken down, Audi would have missed a podium finish for the first time in 18 years - a great run was ruined this year by turbo trouble in the #7 R18 e-tron Quattro driven by Lotterer-Treluyer-Fassler, and the third place was taken by the #8 Audi with Lucas Di Grassi driving. Winners #LeMans24 #919Hybrid @Porsche_Team @neeljani @LiebMarc @RomainDumas but kudos to @Toyota_Hybrid team pic.twitter.com/TLRuwuSTzx — Porsche GB (@PorscheGB) June 19, 2016 ??? #LeMans24 pic.twitter.com/zUkBbA65RK — Peter Leung (@BaronVonClutch) June 19, 2016 In the GTE Pro Class, Ford had reason to celebrate: the #68 Ford GT campaigned by Chip Ganassi Racing took a class win 50 years after Ford's 1-2-3 GT40 Le Mans win in 1966. 50 years to the day following the '66 Le Mans 1-2-3, the No. 68 #FordGT has won the GTE Pro Class at #LeMans24 pic.twitter.com/jkMLuWlEYm — Ford Performance (@FordPerformance) June 19, 2016 For the full list of official results, click here.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.