2012 Prius Plug In L@@k Only 6k 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.

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.

Toyota, Nissan, Honda will work together on hydrogen filling stations

Japan's own version of the Big Three is taking on a transportation effort that's a far cry from the large-engined history of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. In fact, Toyota, Nissan and Honda are looking to do their part – and maybe a little more – for the environment by working together to collaborate on accelerating the deployment of hydrogen fuel delivery in Japan. More refueling stations means more convenience for prospective hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle owners. Toyota says the specifics, including investment amount and the number of stations to be deployed, will be "determined at a later date." Still, the effort dovetails with that of the Japanese government. That government announced a so-called Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells last June and subsequently said it would start offering about $20,000 worth of incentives for fuel cell vehicle buyers. In December, Toyota started selling its first mass-produced fuel cell vehicle, the Mirai, in Japan and said it would almost triple production to 2,000 vehicles in 2016 from 700 this year. Last month, the Tokyo government began talks with Toyota and Honda to collaborate on ensuring that there'd be at least 6,000 fuel-cell vehicles on Japan's roads in time for the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. Tokyo officials are looking to have 100,000 fuel-cell vehicles on the city's roads by 2025. Check out Toyota's press release below. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda to Jointly Support Hydrogen Station Infrastructure Development Toyota Motor Corporation, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., and Honda Motor Co., Ltd. have agreed to work together to help accelerate the development of hydrogen station infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Specific measures to be undertaken by the three manufacturers will be determined at a later date. For hydrogen-fueled FCVs to gain popularity, it is not only important that attractive products be launched-hydrogen station infrastructure must also be developed. At present, infrastructure companies are making every effort to build such an infrastructure, but they face difficulties in installing and operating hydrogen stations while FCVs are not common on the road. Following the formulation of its Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in June 2014, the Japanese government has highlighted the importance of developing hydrogen station infrastructure as quickly as possible in order to popularize FCVs.