2008 Toyota Solara Se Coupe 2-door 2.4l 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.

Midsize Sedan Comparison | Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Mazda6

The rumors of the midsize sedan's death have been greatly exaggerated. The 2018 Honda Accord and 2018 Toyota Camry together moved more than 262,000 units through May of this year, which is still a ton of cars. Then again, both are down year-over-year despite being completely, and quite impressively, redesigned for 2018. So yes, the midsize sedan's grip on family transportation is weakening. Ford certainly thinks so, yet this change in consumer preferences comes at a time when the current crop of sedans is sensational. They're bigger and more powerful, yet also more efficient. Safety scores are impeccable. They even look better than ever. So before running out to score one of the bajillion little SUVs flooding the market, why not ponder this trio of midsize sedan all-stars that might actually work better? Over the course of three consecutive weeks we tested the 2018 Camry XSE V6, 2018 Accord Touring 2.0T and the perennial critical-darling 2018 Mazda6 Signature. The latter was thoroughly overhauled and, perhaps as such, bucked the segment trend by actually selling more in June this year. Each was a range-topping trim level with all the bells and whistles, plus the most powerful engine available. Really, you couldn't find cars closer in power, price and feature content. View 57 Photos Performance and fuel economy Toyota bucked the turbocharged trend by sticking with naturally aspirated engines for the 2018 Camry, and when it comes to its 3.5-liter V6, it's sure hard to argue with that decision. For starters, it produces 301 horsepower. Let that sink in for a moment. A 301-hp Toyota Camry. That crushes the others, while its 267 pound-feet of torque is only 6 less than the Accord. This is a strong, smooth engine that only gets better when you realize it matches the 26-mpg combined fuel economy of the others. Honda, meanwhile, followed the masses by switching to a turbocharged four-cylinder for the Accord's engine upgrade (and its base engine, for that matter). Though its 252 hp is considerably down on the Camry and its 271 lb-ft is only a smidgen more, the Accord's torque arrives earlier in the rev range without feeling overtly turbocharged. It also has 143 fewer pounds to contend with. When wrung out, this new 2.0-liter belts out a beautiful, typically Honda song made possible by the smart 10-speed automatic (the base 1.5-liter is paired to a CVT that results in more drone than mechanical music) that thankfully doesn't draw much attention to itself.

Toyota unveils two new small displacement engines

Toyota introduced a pair of brand-new engines in Japan today, that it says will eventually spawn 14 different variants by 2015. Where these two engines stand out in today's world, is that neither mill boasts direct injection, and both are naturally aspirated.
The larger of the two is a 1.3-liter, while the smaller engine, a 1.0-liter, was developed in collaboration with Daihatsu. What makes these two unique is that they both use the Atkinson cycle. Now, we aren't going to bore you by explaining just what this is - there's Google for that. Suffice it to say, Atkinson engines are highly efficient, but that efficiency comes by sacrificing power. That's why they're so popular in hybrids, which can offset the power losses.
This focus on fuel efficiency extends throughout the new engines, which also benefit from tweaks like a cooled exhaust gas recirculation system and a trick intake port, while the 1.3 employs Toyota's iE variant of variable valve timing. Both engines can be fitted with stop-start tech. According to Toyota, when fitted with stop-start the 1.3 should provide around a 15-percent bump while the 1.0-liter will increase economy around 30 percent, when they arrive on the road.