2012 Toyota Tundra Crewmax V8 6-passenger Tow 21k Miles Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

At meeting with automakers, Trump launches new attack on NAFTA

WASHINGTON — Ten American and foreign automakers went to the White House on Friday to push for a weakening of U.S. fuel efficiency standards through 2025, while President Donald Trump used the occasion to launch a fresh attack on the North American Free Trade Agreement that has benefited the companies. A draft proposal circulated by the U.S. Transportation Department would freeze fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026, rather than allowing them to increase as previously planned. Trump's administration is expected to formally unveil the proposal later this month or in June. "We're working on CAFE standards, environmental controls," Trump told reporters at the top of the meeting, referring to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars and light trucks in the United States. Trump said he wants automakers to build more vehicles in the United States and export more vehicles. But much of the hour-long meeting focused on NAFTA. Trump blasted the pact involving the United States, Canada and Mexico as "terrible" and noted that negotiations to make changes sought by his administration were ongoing. "NAFTA has been a horrible, horrible disaster for this country and we'll see if we can make it reasonable," Trump said. Automakers have called NAFTA a success, allowing them to integrate production throughout North America and make production competitive with Asia and Europe, and have noted the increase in auto production over the past two decades with the deal in place. They have warned that changing NAFTA too much could prompt some companies to move production out of the United States. The chief executives of General Motors Co, Ford Motor Co, Fiat Chrysler, along with senior U.S. executives from Toyota Motor Corp, Volkswagen AG, Hyundai Motor Co, Nissan Motor Co, Honda Motor Co , BMW AG and Daimler AG met with Trump, as did the chief executives of two auto trade groups. Major automakers reiterated this week they do not support freezing fuel efficiency requirements but said they want new flexibility and rule changes to address lower gasoline prices and the shift in U.S. consumer preferences to bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Scion was slain by Toyota, not the Great Recession

Scion didn't have to go down like this. Through the magic of hindsight and hubris, it's easier to see what went wrong. And what might have been. What the industry should understand is this: Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. This is more than just the failure of a sub-brand. It's the failure of a company to deliver new and compelling products over an extended period of time. Toyota will point to the Great Recession as the reason it hedged its bets and withdrew funding for new vehicles, instead of using that as an opportunity to redouble efforts. This was as good as a death warrant, although myopically no one realized it at the time. Sadly, GM's Saturn experiment was a road map for this exact form of failure. No one at Toyota seemed to think the Saturn experience was worth protecting their experimental brand from. Or they weren't heard. Brands live and die on product. Somehow, Scion convinced itself that its real success metric was a youthful demographic of buyers. It seems like this was used to gauge the overall health of the brand. Look at the aging and uncompetitive tC, which Scion proudly noted had a 29-year-old average buyer. That fails to take into account its lack of curb appeal and flagging sales. Who cares if the declining number of people buying your cars are younger? Toyota is going to kill the tC thirteen years [And two indifferent generations ... - Ed.] after it was introduced. In that time, Honda has come out with three entirely new generations of the Civic. Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. At launch, the brand could have gone a few different ways. The xB was plucky, interesting, and useful – a tough mix of ephemeral characteristics – but the xA didn't offer much except a thin veneer of self-consciously applied attitude. That's ok; it was cute. Enter the tC, which managed to combine sporty pretensions with decent cost. It took on the Civic Coupe in the contest for coolness, and usually managed to win. More importantly, an explicit brand value early on was a desire to avoid second generations of any of its models, promising a continually evolving and fresh lineup. At this point, the road splits. Down one lane lies the Scion that could have been. After a short but reasonable product lifecycle, it would have renewed the entire lineup.

2019 Toyota Corolla Hatchback, Volvos earn IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

It's time for another round-up of recent IIHS crash tested cars. The trio this time include the 2019 Toyota Corolla Hatchback, 2019 Volvo XC90 and 2018 Volvo S90. All three have earned one of the highest ratings from the IIHS, the Top Safety Pick. And all three continue a trend of very safe cars having slightly below-par headlights, preventing them from earning the highest Top Safety Pick+ rating. Of these three cars, the Corolla Hatchback has the most impressive scores. It earned the highest "Good" rating in every single crash test, including the difficult small-overlap passenger-side collision. It also received the top score for access to LATCH anchors for child seats. The standard forward collision prevention technology also brought home the best score possible, stopping the car before a crash at speeds up to 25 mph. The headlights themselves weren't particularly bad either, earning the second-highest score of "Acceptable" with both the standard and optional LED headlights. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Both Volvos shared similar scores to the Corolla Hatchback, with "Good" ratings for all crash tests they participated in, and top rank for their standard forward collision technology. Both vehicles were not tested for the passenger-side small overlap collision, so there is no score in that area. Both also received the "Acceptable" rating for LATCH anchor access. In the headlight department, the XC90 earned "Acceptable" scores for both of its available headlights, and the S90 received an "Acceptable" for its optional lights, while the standard ones were rated as "Marginal." Related Video: