2012 Toyota Prius V Leather Navigation** Best Deal On Ebay** Call Eugene (2 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Subaru Forester vs compact SUV rivals: How they compare on paper

We've seen what the 2019 Subaru Forester looks like (pretty much the same). We've found out how much it's going to cost (just a bit more). And also how much bigger and more powerful it'll be (appreciably on both counts). Now it's time to see how all of that compares to its top compact SUV rivals. While you can see the same engine and dimension specs for every compact SUV here, for this comparison featuring the latest 2019 Forester info, we've decided to define "top rivals" as those that the 2018 model was most frequently cross-shopped with. That means the 2018 Honda CR-V, 2018 Toyota RAV4, 2018 Mazda CX-5 and 2018 Nissan Rogue. At the time of this writing, none of their respective manufacturers had released data for 2019 models. We also included info for the 2018 Forester as well. So, without further blather, cue the Spreadsheet-o-Matic 3000. How big are they? The 2019 Forester may look nearly identical to the compact crossover it replaces, but it's nevertheless bigger and heavier. In particular, its wheelbase has increased from being the smallest in the segment to one that's pretty much average. It's a good bet that this gain is the reason rear seat legroom has also increased. Width is also up, but the Forester actually remains the narrowest compact SUV. As for other noteworthy dimensions, the new Forester now has the most maximum cargo capacity of any compact SUV with 76.1 cubic feet. Now, it should be noted, that's without the panoramic sunroof that comes on all but the base model. With it, max capacity shrinks to 70.9 cu-ft. Two points about that. First, Subaru is the only company that calls out this difference, and all the others almost certainly are not measuring with a sunroof. Second, this gives you an idea about how much of "maximum cargo capacity" includes space up high where you're probably not storing much cargo. As such, we included the Forester's biggest number and think it fairly indicates Subaru should carry the "biggest in segment" crown. How do their engines and fuel economy compare? Here's the most important takeaway here: The new Forester is tied for the best fuel economy in the segment, but that's with standard all-wheel drive. Everything else listed above is with front-wheel drive. The 2019 model also gets a welcome injection of power, resulting in the fourth-most base horsepower in the segment (or fifth, if you consider the CR-V technically holds spots 1 and 3).

Lexus F performance SUV could be in the works

Amid the wave of SUVs and crossovers that has crashed down on the industry, several high-performance sporting SUVs have washed up and started to fill a separate growing niche. It's an idea that Lexus is contemplating, according to a new report, with a possible F-branded utility vehicle focusing on either on- or off-road specialties. At the Rolex 24 in Daytona, Florida, Motor1 learned that incorporating a crossover or SUV into Lexus' F performance division has been under "active discussion." That doesn't necessarily mean a hotted-up utility vehicle, however. According to the report, F could translate to a different type of performance on the SUV, specifically for off-road capabilities. Using the F badge in this way would be a huge departure from what it has meant during the brand's 10-year history. Lexus currently offers the sport-focused RC F and the GS F, with an LC F expected soon. Should Lexus decide to lean further into the sport performance methodology with its utility vehicles, the newly released UX and the NX would likely be the top candidates. That said, Lexus does have two highly competent off-road vehicles in the Lexus GX and LX. Plus, Toyota, Lexus' parent brand, has been producing some of the best off-road vehicles on the market for years. As of now, this is just talk, but the way SUV and crossover sales have been going, we'd expect an F-branded Lexus SUV in the near future. Which kind of enthusiast it's for remains to be seen. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Bibendum 2014: Former EU President says Toyota could lose 100,000 euros per hydrogen FCV sedan

Pat Cox does not work for Toyota and we don't think he has any secret inside information. Still, he's the former President of the European Parliament and the current high level coordinator for TransEuropean Network, so when he says Toyota is likely going to lose between 50,000 and 100,000 euros ($66,000 and $133,000) on each of the hydrogen-powered FCV sedans it will sell next year, it's worth noting. That was just one highlight of Cox's presentation at the 2014 Michelin Challenge Bibendum in Chengdu, China today, which addressed the main problem of using more H2 in transportation: cost. The EU has a tremendous incentive to find an alternative to fossil fuels, since Europe today is 94 percent dependent on oil for its transportation sector and 84 percent of that 94 percent dependency is imported oil. The tab for that costs the EU a billion euros a day, Cox said, on top of the environmental costs. To encourage a shift away from petroleum, European Directive 2014/94 requires each member state to develop national policy frameworks for the market development of alternative fuels and their infrastructure. For the member states that choose to fulfill 2014/94 by developing a hydrogen market – and to be clear, Cox said, it's not an EU diktat that they do so, since a number of other alternatives are also allowed – the aim is to have things in place by the end of 2025. The plans don't even have to be submitted until the end of 2016. The long lead time is due to a quirk in a hydrogen economy. In hydrogen infrastructure, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the firstmover disadvantage." – Pat Cox In deploying a hydrogen infrastructure, Cox said, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the first-mover disadvantage, and high risk." That's why the EU and member states will financially support the early stages, but everyone agrees that "if this is to work, it will have to be ultimately and essentially a commercially viable and commercially driven infrastructure roll-out." Since 1986, European Union research programs have spent 550 million euros on hydrogen-related and fuel-cell-related research, including methods of hydrogen storage and distribution as well as improved fuel cells vehicles, Cox said. Expensive problems remain to be solved. At a conference in Berlin, Germany this past summer, Cox said, the unit cost of the refueling stations was identified as the main problem.