Pickup trucks have traditionally prioritized towing strength, payload capacity, and rugged construction over fuel efficiency. That balance is changing as hybrid systems, turbocharged engines, and modern diesel powertrains help trucks travel farther on a gallon of fuel.

For American buyers, comparing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy ratings provides a useful way to identify efficient options. This ranking focuses on gasoline, hybrid, and diesel pickups, using their most efficient relevant configurations where verified figures are available.

Electric trucks are excluded because their MPGe ratings measure energy efficiency differently from gasoline MPG, making direct comparisons less straightforward.

1. Ford Maverick Hybrid

The Ford Maverick Hybrid sets the benchmark for fuel-conscious pickup buyers. For the 2026 model year, its front-wheel-drive configuration is EPA-rated at 38 MPG combined, with 42 MPG city and 35 MPG highway.

Those figures are exceptional for a vehicle with an open cargo bed, and they put the Maverick in a different efficiency league from conventional midsize and full-size trucks.

The powertrain pairs a 2.5-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine with an electric motor and hybrid battery. Rather than relying on a large engine to move a heavy truck, the system can use electric assistance during acceleration and recover energy through regenerative braking.

That arrangement is particularly beneficial in stop-and-go traffic, where conventional gasoline pickups tend to consume more fuel.

Its compact dimensions also make the Maverick practical for urban owners. It is easier to park than a full-size pickup, while the bed remains useful for home-improvement supplies, bicycles, gardening equipment, and weekend projects. Buyers who rarely tow heavy trailers may find that this smaller format covers most everyday needs.

There are trade-offs. The hybrid is not intended to match a heavy-duty truck’s payload or towing capabilities, and carrying substantial loads can reduce real-world fuel economy. Four-wheel-drive requirements and configuration choices also affect the final rating.

For drivers who want pickup utility without full-size fuel bills, the Maverick Hybrid earns first place through its combination of a practical bed, compact footprint, and outstanding EPA-rated efficiency.

2. Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Duramax Diesel

The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 demonstrates that a full-size work truck can deliver competitive fuel economy without sacrificing the torque needed for demanding jobs.

Its available 3.0-liter Duramax turbo-diesel inline-six is rated at up to 25 MPG combined in the 2026 model year with two-wheel drive. Four-wheel-drive versions achieve up to 24 MPG combined, depending on configuration.

This engine produces 305 horsepower and 495 lb-ft of torque. That substantial torque output makes the Silverado attractive to owners who tow trailers, transport equipment, or regularly cover long highway distances.

Properly equipped versions can tow up to 13,300 pounds, although the maximum depends on the truck’s configuration and equipment.

Diesel technology helps explain the truck’s efficiency. The engine is designed to deliver strong pulling power at relatively low engine speeds, which suits highway cruising and hauling.

Unlike a hybrid, it does not rely on an electric motor to improve its fuel economy. Instead, its diesel combustion process and powertrain calibration contribute to its ability to cover long distances efficiently.

Continue reading.

A dependable car should do more than start every morning. It should keep repair bills manageable, deliver consistent performance, and leave owners confident about their purchase.

In the United States, Consumer Reports evaluates reliability using owner surveys, while J.D. Power measures reported vehicle problems, and Consumer Reports separately tracks whether owners would buy the same vehicle again.

These measurements reveal why some brands build lasting loyalty while others struggle with quality concerns. This ranking draws on published reliability findings and owner-satisfaction data, recognizing that a brand’s reputation can differ considerably from one model to another.

1. Lexus

Lexus has built its reputation around careful engineering, refined driving experiences, and long-term dependability. Its standing is supported by independent research rather than reputation alone.

In J.D. Power’s 2026 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study, Lexus ranked highest among premium brands for the fourth consecutive year, recording 151 problems per 100 vehicles. A lower score indicates fewer reported problems.

The study examined owners’ experiences with three-year-old vehicles, making it useful for assessing durability beyond the initial purchase period.

Consumer Reports also placed Lexus at the top of its 2025 brand reliability rankings, based on reported problems across multiple vehicle systems.

Its December 2025 brand report card gave Lexus a predicted reliability rating of four out of five and an owner-satisfaction rating of four out of five. In the organization’s owner survey, 66% of Lexus respondents said they would buy the same vehicle again.

What makes Lexus particularly compelling is its broad lineup. Buyers can choose sedans such as the ES and IS or SUVs such as the RX and GX, depending on their space and performance requirements.

However, reliability is not identical across every model or powertrain. New designs, complex technology, maintenance history, and specific engine configurations can all affect ownership experiences.

Lexus vehicles generally carry premium purchase prices, and replacement parts or dealer servicing can cost more than comparable mainstream alternatives. Nevertheless, strong dependability results suggest that buyers prioritizing fewer reported problems should place Lexus high on their research list.

Its strongest evidence-based advantage is consistency across independent reliability assessments, reinforced by owners who remain satisfied with their vehicles after purchase.

2. Subaru

Subaru appeals to drivers who want year-round practicality without giving up the reassurance of strong reliability results. Its reputation is closely connected to standard all-wheel drive across much of its U.S. lineup, including the Impreza, Crosstrek, Forester, and Outback.

That hardware can improve traction on slippery roads, although it does not eliminate the need for suitable tires or careful driving in winter conditions.

Consumer Reports placed Subaru among the leading brands in its December 2025 reliability assessment, alongside Lexus and Toyota.

Subaru’s 2025 brand report card gave it four out of five for predicted reliability and four out of five for owner satisfaction. It also earned a score of 82, matching BMW for the highest score in the report.

Owner feedback supports its appeal. Consumer Reports found that 69% of surveyed Subaru owners would buy the same vehicle again, placing the brand third in its December 2025 owner-satisfaction rankings.

Continue reading.

Europe and America buy vehicles for different reasons, and their sales rankings reveal just how sharply those preferences can diverge. European buyers gravitate toward compact hatchbacks, affordable small cars, and practical crossovers, while the American market gives enormous weight to pickups, family SUVs, and larger vehicles.

Full-year sales data for 2025 offer a useful comparison, with the Dacia Sandero topping Europe’s vehicle model rankings and Ford’s F-Series retaining its position as America’s best-selling vehicle line.

The comparisons below use published sales figures from both markets to explain what sells, why these vehicles appeal to buyers, and what the differences reveal about regional driving habits.

1. Dacia Sandero vs. Ford F-Series

Europe’s top-selling car and America’s best-selling vehicle could hardly be more different. The Dacia Sandero recorded 243,676 registrations in Europe in 2025, securing first place for the second consecutive year.

In the United States, the Ford F-Series sold 828,832 vehicles, retaining its position as the country’s leading vehicle line. The figures come from separate regional sales datasets, so they reflect registrations in Europe and sales in America rather than perfectly identical measurement systems.

The Sandero’s appeal is rooted in affordability. Built by Romanian manufacturer Dacia, part of Renault Group, it gives European buyers a straightforward small car with practical passenger space and relatively modest running costs.

Its compact dimensions suit crowded cities, narrow streets, and parking spaces that can make large vehicles inconvenient. Its success also demonstrates the importance of purchase price in a market where many households prioritize value over size or luxury.

Ford’s F-Series serves a very different role. The lineup includes light-duty and heavy-duty pickups used for work, recreation, towing, and everyday transportation. American buyers often expect one vehicle to handle commuting, home projects, trailers, and substantial cargo, making a versatile pickup particularly attractive.

The sales gap reflects these different priorities, not a direct contest between equivalent products. The Sandero is a small passenger car, while the F-Series is a family of trucks with much greater hauling capability and a higher potential purchase price.

Their sales rankings highlight a key difference between the two markets. European buyers show strong demand for affordable, compact cars, while American buyers favor versatile vehicles with substantial hauling and towing capabilities. Although individual preferences vary, the figures illustrate these distinct market trends.

2. Renault Clio vs. Chevrolet Silverado

The Renault Clio secured second place among Europe’s best-selling cars in 2025, with 229,778 registrations. Across the Atlantic, the Chevrolet Silverado finished second among America’s best-selling vehicle lines, with approximately 580,368 sales during the same calendar year.

These results illustrate how a small European hatchback and a full-size American pickup can occupy similarly prominent positions in their respective markets while serving very different needs.

The Clio has long been a familiar choice for European drivers who want a compact, versatile car. Its relatively small footprint suits city streets, while its hatchback layout provides useful cargo flexibility for shopping, commuting, and weekend travel.

European buyers can also encounter different engine and electrification options depending on the market and model year. Its popularity reflects the continued relevance of affordable, efficient passenger cars despite the growth of SUVs.

Continue reading.

The global automotive industry reached a new production record in 2025, manufacturing 96.38 million motor vehicles worldwide, according to the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA).

China maintained a commanding lead, while the United States, Japan, and India formed the next tier of major producers. These rankings count vehicles manufactured within each country, including passenger cars and commercial vehicles where reported.

Some national figures cover passenger cars only or specific vehicle categories, so those exceptions are identified rather than treated as directly comparable totals. The latest figures reveal where manufacturing capacity is expanding, where it is slowing, and which countries remain essential to the world’s automotive supply chains.

1. China

2025 production: 34,530,738 motor vehicles

China is the world’s largest automotive manufacturing nation by a substantial margin. OICA recorded 34.53 million vehicles produced in 2025, up approximately 10% from 31.28 million in 2024. That single-country output represents more than one-third of global vehicle production, reflecting the enormous scale of China’s industrial base.

The country manufactures conventional gasoline cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery-electric vehicles, and commercial vehicles. Domestic companies such as BYD, Geely, Chery, and SAIC compete alongside international automakers operating factories and joint ventures in China.

This combination supports a large manufacturing ecosystem that includes vehicle assembly, batteries, electronics, motors, and other essential components.

Electric vehicles are a particularly important part of China’s growth. OICA reported that Chinese new-energy vehicle production reached approximately 16.63 million units in 2025, an increase of 29%. That category includes more than battery-electric cars alone, so it should not be confused with a count of fully electric vehicles.

China also benefits from substantial domestic demand and an extensive supplier network. Manufacturers can produce at scale while competing aggressively on price, features, and technology.

Exports have become increasingly important, although tariffs and trade restrictions can affect which markets Chinese-built vehicles reach.

The country’s production lead reflects more than cheap manufacturing. It combines industrial capacity, battery supply chains, intense competition, and a large home market. Decisions made by Chinese automakers now influence global vehicle pricing, electrification strategies, and the competitive direction of the automotive industry.

2. United States

2025 production: 10,243,844 motor vehicles

The United States remained the world’s second-largest vehicle producer in 2025, although output declined approximately 3% from the previous year’s 10.52 million units. OICA recorded 10.24 million vehicles manufactured in American factories, including passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, vans, and other commercial vehicles.

The American industry has a distinctive production mix. Full-size pickups and SUVs occupy a major position, reflecting domestic demand for towing capability, passenger space, and versatile cargo capacity.

Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis operate extensive manufacturing networks, while international companies, including Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, also build vehicles in the country.

American factories supply both domestic buyers and overseas markets. The industry depends on a closely integrated North American supply chain, with components and finished vehicles moving between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Engines, transmissions, batteries, electronics, and other components may cross borders during production.

Electrification is changing investment decisions. Automakers are developing electric vehicles, hybrids, and battery manufacturing capacity, but conventional gasoline-powered vehicles and pickups remain important to American production. Changes in consumer demand, factory schedules, and trade policies can influence annual output.

Continue reading.

American pickups have changed dramatically since their earliest generations. What once counted as a compact work truck can look surprisingly small beside a modern model, with today’s pickups offering wider bodies, longer wheelbases, roomier cabins, and more advanced technology.

But the growth has not followed the same pattern for every nameplate. Some trucks have expanded to accommodate family use and heavier workloads, while others have moved into a different size class altogether.

This comparison examines six familiar pickups, using published U.S. specifications to show how their first generations compare with their latest generations and where the biggest dimensional changes appear.

1. Ford Ranger: From Compact Workhorse to a Much Broader Midsize Truck

The original 1983 Ford Ranger was designed for buyers who wanted pickup usefulness without the footprint of a full-size truck. In a regular-cab, short-bed configuration, it measured approximately 175.6 inches long and 66.9 inches wide, excluding mirrors.

Its compact proportions made it easier to park, maneuver through tight work sites, and use as everyday transportation. The original Ranger also offered a simple, upright cabin rather than the large passenger space that many truck buyers expect today.

The modern U.S. Ranger has a different presence. Ford’s 2025 technical specifications list the SuperCrew model at 210.6 inches long and 75.5 inches wide without mirrors.

Compared with the original short-bed regular cab, that is an increase of about 35 inches in length and 8.6 inches in width. Its 128.7-inch wheelbase also supports a larger overall package, including a four-door cabin and a rear seat suitable for carrying passengers.

That comparison does require context: the 1983 measurements describe a regular-cab truck, while the modern figures describe a four-door SuperCrew. Part of the increase comes from comparing different body styles, not just from the same design becoming larger.

Even so, the numbers illustrate how the Ranger’s role has evolved. It remains smaller than Ford’s full-size pickup, but it now delivers the passenger space, technology, and road presence associated with today’s midsize segment.

The evolution goes beyond appearance. Today’s Ranger is designed for a variety of needs, from weekday commuting and family trips to towing equipment and weekend off-road adventures. While the original focused on compact utility, the modern truck combines that practical foundation with greater versatility for everyday life.

2. Toyota Tundra: From a Relatively Compact Full-Size Challenger to a Broad, Modern Hauler

When the Toyota Tundra arrived for the 2000 model year, it marked Toyota’s serious entry into the American full-size pickup market. The first-generation truck was already substantial for its time, but its proportions were noticeably more restrained than those of the current model.

Toyota’s original owner’s manual lists a standard-cab configuration at approximately 212.8 inches long and 75.2 inches wide, with the precise measurements depending on equipment and whether the width includes exterior body extensions.

By 2025, the Tundra had grown into a much larger machine. Toyota lists its Double Cab with the standard bed at 233.6 inches long and 80.2 inches wide.

That represents an increase of about 20.8 inches in length and 5 inches in width compared with the cited first-generation configuration. The modern truck also uses a 145.7-inch wheelbase in this setup, contributing to its longer footprint and more spacious cabin.

Continue reading.

The 1990s gave enthusiasts memorable sports cars with sharp handling, distinctive engines, and impressive performance for their time. Yet modern family vehicles can now deliver power figures that once belonged to dedicated two-seat coupes and performance machines.

Better engine technology, turbocharging, improved electronics, and hybrid assistance have changed what everyday transportation can achieve. This list compares six modern family-oriented vehicles with genuine 1990s sports cars, using published U.S.-market horsepower figures.

The aim is not to suggest that horsepower alone determines performance but to show how much power has become accessible in vehicles designed for ordinary daily duties.

1. Honda Pilot: A Three-Row Family SUV With More Power Than a 1995 Nissan 300ZX

The Honda Pilot is built to move families, not chase sports cars around a racetrack. Yet the 2025 model’s 3.5-liter V6 produces 285 horsepower, giving this three-row SUV a power advantage over the standard 1995 Nissan 300ZX, which delivered 222 horsepower from its naturally aspirated 3.0-liter V6.

The modern Honda leads by 63 horsepower, a difference of roughly 28 percent. That comparison sounds surprising because the 300ZX was a purpose-built sports coupe, with rear-wheel drive and a low, two-door body. Its power was directed toward a very different driving experience.

The Pilot, meanwhile, provides three rows of seating, family-friendly storage, and available all-wheel drive. Honda pairs its V6 with a 10-speed automatic transmission, while certain configurations can tow up to 5,000 pounds when properly equipped.

Horsepower alone does not make the Pilot a more sporting vehicle. The Nissan is much lower and lighter, and its rear-wheel-drive layout gives it a different balance and character. The Pilot carries more passengers and equipment, so its engine has a different job to perform. Still, the numerical comparison shows how far everyday vehicle power has advanced.

The 1995 300ZX remains an interesting benchmark because its 222-hp rating was respectable for a Japanese sports coupe of its period. Today, a mainstream family SUV can exceed that figure while offering modern crash protection, driver-assistance technology, and room for up to eight occupants, depending on configuration.

2. Kia K5 GT: A Practical Sedan That Outmuscles the 1993 Mazda RX-7

A family sedan does not need a dramatic body kit or a two-seat cabin to deliver serious horsepower. The 2025 Kia K5 GT makes that point with a turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine producing 290 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque.

That output exceeds the 255 horsepower produced by the turbocharged 1.3-liter rotary engine in the 1993 Mazda RX-7 sold in the United States. The Kia has a 35-hp advantage on paper.

The RX-7 was engineered around a very different philosophy. Its compact body, rear-wheel-drive layout, and rotary engine gave it the character of a dedicated enthusiast’s car.

The 1993 model’s engine produced its peak power at 6,500 rpm, and it was available with a five-speed manual transmission. The K5 GT instead combines its turbocharged engine with an eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission and front-wheel drive.

The Kia’s advantage is not simply a bigger horsepower figure. It offers four doors, a conventional rear seat, and everyday practicality without abandoning acceleration-focused engineering.

Continue reading.

Crash testing has transformed vehicle safety by revealing how bodies deform, how restraints protect occupants, and where serious injuries can occur. Older vehicles were built before many modern crash-test procedures and occupant-protection technologies became standard.

Today’s assessments examine more collision types and measure how well vehicles preserve survival space. These seven comparisons focus on documented old-versus-new crash tests, highlighting the results and the safety lessons behind them.

Historical ratings are not always directly comparable because testing procedures have changed, but these examples show how crash protection has developed through measurable engineering improvements.

1. 1959 vs. 2009: The Frontal Offset Crash Test

In 2009, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted a widely reported frontal offset crash demonstration involving a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu.

Both vehicles collided at approximately 40 mph, with only part of each car’s front end engaging the other. The test showed a dramatic difference in how their structures responded to impact.

The older vehicle’s passenger compartment experienced extensive deformation. IIHS measurements showed that the footrest moved rearward by approximately 24.4 inches, compared with about 2.8 inches in the newer vehicle.

At a dashboard measurement point, rearward intrusion was approximately 12.6 inches in the 1959 car and roughly 1.2 inches in the 2009 car. These measurements help explain why cabin deformation is such an important factor in evaluating crash protection.

The modern vehicle benefited from a structure engineered to absorb impact energy in designated areas while keeping the passenger compartment more intact. Its restraints and airbags were also designed to work together to reduce occupant contact with hard interior surfaces.

The demonstration did not test every vehicle from either era, so its findings should not be treated as a universal safety rating. However, the difference in structural damage highlights an important point. A heavy metal body does not guarantee occupant protection if the passenger cabin collapses during a crash.

Modern crashworthiness places greater emphasis on maintaining survival space and managing forces before they reach the people inside.

2. 1990s Crash Protection vs. Modern Small-Overlap Frontal Testing

During the 1990s, frontal crash testing was already an established part of vehicle safety evaluation. However, many earlier assessments focused on impact patterns that engaged a relatively large portion of the vehicle’s front end.

In 2012, IIHS introduced a small-overlap frontal test to address another dangerous scenario: a collision in which only 25 percent of the front width strikes a rigid barrier at 40 mph.

The newer test places unusual stress on the front corner of the vehicle. Because the impact can miss major components designed to absorb crash energy, the wheel and suspension may be forced toward the passenger compartment. The vehicle may also rotate abruptly, increasing the demands placed on the restraint system.

This test revealed weaknesses that conventional frontal assessments could miss. Some vehicles that had performed well in other crash tests initially struggled to maintain cabin integrity or control dummy movement in small-overlap collisions.

Manufacturers responded by strengthening front-corner structures, modifying suspension components, and improving the way crash forces travel through the body.

Continue reading.

Some countries have far more passenger cars relative to their populations than others. The difference reflects household income, commuting habits, public transportation, geography, and the cost of owning a vehicle.

To avoid mixing outdated figures with newer statistics, this ranking uses the latest comparable 2025 passenger-car rates published by Eurostat, covering European countries and selected neighboring nations.

The measure counts registered passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants, not the percentage of people who personally own a car. Monaco is excluded because a comparable 2025 figure could not be verified.

1. Liechtenstein: 769 Passenger Cars per 1,000 Inhabitants

Liechtenstein ranks first in the latest comparable European data, recording 769 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants in 2025. In practical terms, that represents nearly 77 registered passenger cars for every 100 residents.

The figure is notably higher than the European Union average of 584 cars per 1,000 inhabitants, illustrating how widespread vehicle ownership is in this small Alpine country.

Its geography offers useful context. Liechtenstein lies between Switzerland and Austria, with towns and villages spread along the Rhine Valley and near the surrounding mountains. Although the country is small, residents travel for work, shopping, education, and cross-border activities.

A private car can provide flexibility for journeys that do not align neatly with public transport schedules.

However, the rate should not be confused with the proportion of residents who own cars. One household may register several vehicles, while another may have none. Business-owned passenger cars are also part of vehicle-registration statistics. The indicator counts registered passenger cars relative to the total population, rather than identifying individual owners.

Liechtenstein’s high ranking also does not mean that every journey is made by car. Public buses connect communities and provide links to neighboring transport networks. Residents can choose different modes according to their destinations and routines.

The key takeaway is the scale of registered passenger-car availability relative to the population. Liechtenstein’s 2025 rate places it ahead of the other countries in Eurostat’s comparable dataset, although it remains important to distinguish a vehicle-per-person measure from actual driving frequency or household ownership.

2. Italy: 709 Passenger Cars per 1,000 Inhabitants

Italy ranks second in the comparable 2025 figures, with 709 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants. That is approximately 71 registered cars for every 100 people, substantially above the European Union average of 584.

Italy’s position is particularly notable because the country combines major metropolitan areas with smaller towns, rural communities, and regions where daily travel often depends on private transportation.

The country’s car culture has deep roots, supported by a large domestic automotive industry and a long tradition of personal mobility. For many households, a car provides flexibility for commuting, shopping, family responsibilities, and travel between communities.

Yet the need for a private vehicle varies considerably across Italy. Residents of central urban areas may have access to rail, metro, tram, and bus services, while people living in less densely connected locations can find driving more convenient.

Italy’s high rate also reflects the difference between registering cars and actually using them. The statistic includes passenger cars in the vehicle fleet, so a registered car contributes to the total even if its owner does not drive it every day.

Continue reading.

Buying a used car can feel like finding a bargain until a mechanic uncovers problems hidden beneath its polished exterior. A vehicle may start easily, drive smoothly, and look immaculate while concealing structural damage, worn suspension components, leaking fluids, or expensive engine trouble.

A pre-purchase inspection helps buyers identify these warning signs before signing a deal. In the United States, where used vehicles range from high-mileage commuters to aging SUVs, a thorough mechanical assessment can prevent costly surprises.

Understanding the most common inspection failures helps buyers recognize genuine bargains, negotiate repairs confidently, and avoid vehicles that could become expensive liabilities.

1. Structural Damage From a Previous Accident

A vehicle can receive fresh paint, replacement panels, and professional detailing without having its underlying structure properly repaired. That is why structural damage is one of the most serious findings during a pre-purchase inspection.

A mechanic examines frame rails, suspension mounting points, floor panels, and other structural sections for evidence of collision damage or questionable repairs.

Uneven panel gaps, mismatched paint, overspray on rubber seals, and disturbed bolts can suggest previous bodywork. These signs do not automatically prove structural damage, but several appearing together justify further investigation. A paint-thickness gauge may help identify areas that have received additional paint or body filler.

Modern passenger vehicles commonly use unibody construction, where the body and structural framework work together. Improper repairs can affect alignment, handling, and crash protection. Vehicles with separate frames should also be examined for bending, cracks, corrosion, and poor-quality welding.

Why the car may fail: Structural components that have been significantly weakened or repaired incorrectly can compromise occupant safety. Correcting such damage may require specialist equipment, manufacturer-approved procedures, and substantial expense.

What buyers should do: Ask an independent collision-repair specialist to assess suspicious areas and provide a written report. The Federal Trade Commission recommends combining a vehicle history report with an independent inspection because history records may not reveal every accident or hidden defect.

If structural damage is confirmed, establish whether a safe, documented repair is possible before considering the purchase. Cosmetic damage may be negotiable, but compromised structural sections should never be dismissed simply because the exterior looks immaculate.

2. Engine Oil Leaks and Internal Engine Trouble

An engine can develop serious problems without producing dramatic smoke or loud knocking noises. Sometimes the first warning is a small puddle beneath the vehicle, an oily coating around a gasket, or a burning smell after a road test. A mechanic should inspect valve covers, seals, the oil pan, and accessible engine surfaces for leakage.

Not every leak means an engine is failing. A minor seep may require a relatively straightforward seal replacement, while a substantial leak can lead to low oil levels and inadequate lubrication. Oil reaching hot exhaust components also deserves immediate attention.

The condition of the engine oil and cooling system can provide additional clues. Persistent coolant loss, overheating, or evidence of oil mixing with coolant may indicate a head-gasket or other internal problem.

However, milky residue beneath an oil cap can sometimes result from condensation during short trips, so it should not be treated as conclusive evidence of engine failure.

Continue reading.

Lending your car to a friend, relative, or colleague might seem like a simple favor, but handing over the keys also means sharing responsibility for a valuable asset.

An unexpected accident, an insurance dispute, an unpaid parking ticket, or damage caused by careless driving can quickly turn a generous gesture into an expensive headache.

In the United States, insurance coverage, state driving laws, and the driver’s record can all influence what happens if something goes wrong.

Before letting anyone take your vehicle, a few practical checks can help protect your finances, reduce misunderstandings, and make sure the person borrowing your car is prepared to drive it responsibly.

1. Check the Borrower’s Driving License and Experience

Before handing over your keys, confirm that the person borrowing your car is legally permitted to drive it. In the United States, licensing requirements vary by state, and a valid license should authorize the type of vehicle being borrowed.

If the person has an expired, suspended, or otherwise invalid license, letting them drive can create legal and insurance complications.

Do not rely entirely on familiarity. A close friend may have driven for years, while a relative may have recently obtained a license and have little experience on highways, in heavy traffic, or with a larger vehicle. Someone accustomed to a compact sedan might struggle with the dimensions, blind spots, and braking characteristics of a full-size pickup or SUV.

Ask about the intended journey, too. Driving a few miles to a nearby store is different from taking an unfamiliar vehicle on a long interstate trip. If the borrower is inexperienced, consider whether the route, weather, traffic, and vehicle size are appropriate.

You should also be alert to signs that the person is not fit to drive at that moment. Alcohol, recreational drugs, certain medications, and severe fatigue can impair driving ability. A valid license does not make impaired driving safe or lawful.

Lending your car to someone who lacks a valid license or cannot drive safely puts other road users at risk and may complicate insurance claims. Depending on your policy, coverage may be limited or denied if the driver is unlicensed or the vehicle is used in a way that violates the policy terms.

Make sure the driver has a valid license and feels comfortable operating the vehicle. Before handing over the keys, explain any unfamiliar features or controls they may need to use.

If the person appears impaired, is dangerously tired, or lacks the necessary legal authorization, do not hand over the keys. A favor is never worth risking someone’s safety or your own financial security.

2. Review Your Auto Insurance Before Handing Over the Keys

One of the biggest mistakes car owners make is assuming that their insurance automatically covers anyone who borrows the vehicle. In the United States, many personal auto policies include what’s commonly called permissive-use coverage.

This can extend certain protections to someone driving with the owner’s permission, but the exact terms depend on the policy and applicable state law.

Continue reading.

A luxury badge, a high purchase price, and sophisticated styling do not guarantee better nighttime visibility.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) demonstrated this in its 2016 headlight evaluations, when several luxury cars received Marginal or Poor ratings while less expensive mainstream models earned Acceptable or Good ratings.

These tests measured how effectively headlights illuminated the road ahead and whether low beams created excessive glare for oncoming drivers.

The comparisons below use specific historical model years and headlight configurations, not current vehicles. That distinction matters because ratings can change with trim levels, optional packages, and improvements made in later years.

1. Mercedes-Benz CLA vs. Honda Accord

The 2019 Mercedes-Benz CLA with standard halogen reflector headlights received a poor rating from IIHS. In comparison, the 2016 Honda Accord sedan with its basic halogen headlights earned an acceptable rating.

The Accord was a mainstream family car, while the CLA was marketed as a luxury sedan, making this a clear example of price and branding failing to predict headlight performance.

The CLA’s weakness was not simply a lack of advanced lighting technology. IIHS found that its low beams provided inadequate visibility on both sides of a straight road and across all four curve tests.

Its high beams improved visibility on the right side of the straightaway, but illumination remained inadequate on the left and on curves. The tested configuration did not have curve-adaptive headlights or high-beam assist.

The Accord delivered a better result despite using conventional halogen lamps. IIHS specifically identified its basic halogen system as Acceptable, while noting that an available LED setup with high-beam assist received a lower Marginal rating.

This result shows that adopting newer headlight technology does not necessarily guarantee better visibility or more effective illumination on the road.

For used-car buyers, the lesson is to verify the exact headlight equipment rather than assuming all versions of a model perform alike. These ratings concern older vehicles, so they should not be applied to a newer CLA or Accord without checking that model year’s IIHS record.

2. Cadillac ATS vs. Mazda6

The 2016 Cadillac ATS demonstrates that even sophisticated lighting hardware can deliver disappointing results. IIHS rated its available headlight systems poor, including configurations with adaptive low and high beams.

The 2016 Mazda6, a mainstream midsize sedan, had an available headlight system rated acceptable. The contrast is striking because the Cadillac carried a luxury-market position, yet its headlights did not achieve the same rating as the Mazda’s best-performing setup.

The Cadillac’s result is particularly instructive because adaptive headlights are designed to improve visibility by directing light as the vehicle turns. However, IIHS evaluates the light that actually reaches the road, not the sophistication of the technology’s name.

The institute’s 2016 report explained that the ATS still earned poor ratings even with adaptive low and high beams. That means the feature itself was not enough to overcome the system’s performance shortcomings.

The Mazda6’s acceptable rating placed its best available headlights above the Cadillac’s poor-rated systems in the same broad testing era.

Continue reading.

A five-star safety rating sounds reassuring, but it does not mean a vehicle performs exceptionally in every safety evaluation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) use different testing programs, criteria, and rating systems.

A car can earn five stars from NHTSA while receiving a poor rating from IIHS for a particular feature, such as headlights.

The examples below use specific U.S. model years with documented five-star NHTSA ratings and Poor IIHS headlight evaluations. These are not claims that every car listed performed poorly in crash protection.

1. Cadillac ATS (2016)

The 2016 Cadillac ATS earned a five-star NHTSA crash-test rating, yet IIHS identified poor performance from its tested headlight configurations. That contrast illustrates why a government crash rating and an IIHS headlight score should not be treated as interchangeable measures.

The Cadillac performed well in several NHTSA crash categories, but its lighting evaluation exposed a separate limitation that matters when driving after dark.

IIHS tested different headlight setups for the ATS, including halogen and HID systems. The institute’s headlight evaluation measures illumination on straight roads and curves, as well as glare from low beams.

A poor result means the tested system did not provide enough useful light in important parts of the test course. It does not mean the car received a poor rating in every IIHS crashworthiness test.

For shoppers, the distinction is particularly relevant when considering an older luxury sedan. The ATS offered premium features and engaging driving characteristics, but neither its badge nor its NHTSA score guarantees strong nighttime visibility.

A buyer should confirm which headlight assembly is fitted to the specific car and check the IIHS rating for that configuration.

The 2016 ATS is therefore an example of a vehicle with strong NHTSA crash-test results but a documented weakness in a separate IIHS safety category.

It is not evidence that the two organizations disagree about the same test. They measure different aspects of safety, and both results can be useful when evaluating a used car.

2. Ford Taurus (2017)

The 2017 Ford Taurus received a five-star NHTSA crash-test rating, but IIHS rated its headlights poor across the tested configurations. The Taurus is a large sedan, and its size and substantial cabin may give buyers a sense of security.

However, headlight performance is a separate consideration, and the IIHS findings show that the car’s lighting did not consistently illuminate the road adequately.

The IIHS tested three headlight configurations on the 2017 Ford Taurus, covering the SHO’s HID projectors and the halogen projectors fitted to the Limited, SE, and SEL trims. All three setups received a poor rating, indicating that none delivered satisfactory headlight performance under the institute’s evaluation.

The low beams struggled to provide adequate visibility on straight roads and curves, with the standard halogen systems performing particularly weakly in the test scenarios. High-beam assist on certain configurations could compensate for some limitations, but it did not raise the rating.

The Taurus’s strong NHTSA crash-test results remain significant, but they do not address every aspect of safety. Its poor headlight ratings point to a separate concern, as limited nighttime visibility can make it harder for drivers to spot pedestrians, road debris, and sudden changes in road conditions before they become hazards.

Continue reading.

A minor collision can produce a surprisingly large repair bill when a vehicle uses expensive body structures, specialized replacement parts, and sophisticated electronics.

In the United States, CCC reported that the average total repair cost reached $4,818 in 2025, while Mitchell’s 2025 data showed an average repair severity of $6,236 for battery-electric vehicles, compared with $5,066 for gasoline-powered vehicles.

Those are category averages, not estimates for every model. The cars below illustrate documented reasons collision repairs can become expensive, using insurance-loss data and reported repair estimates rather than unsupported claims about universal repair bills.

1. Tesla Model X

The Tesla Model X stands out in insurance-loss data because its collision losses are substantially above the passenger-vehicle average. Data published from Highway Loss Data Institute records for 2022 to 2024 model years puts the Model X’s collision-loss measure 118% above the all-vehicle average.

This figure reflects both how frequently collision claims occur and the average cost associated with those claims. It is not a claim that every Model X repair costs 118% more than another vehicle’s repair.

One challenge with repairing a Model X is its combination of a high-tech electric powertrain, electronic systems, sensors, and specialized body components.

Damage around cameras, radar-related equipment that is fitted, or other driver-assistance components can require diagnostic checks and recalibration after the physical work is complete. Parts availability and the need for technicians familiar with the vehicle can also influence repair time and cost.

Electric-vehicle repairs require particular care when damage affects high-voltage components or the battery enclosure. A repair facility must follow the manufacturer’s procedures to assess whether the battery and surrounding structure remain safe.

Not every collision damages these components, but a repair estimate cannot reliably be based on visible panel damage alone.

For owners, the practical step is to use a qualified repair facility and ask the insurer how the estimate accounts for scans, calibrations, and any necessary high-voltage inspection.

The Model X’s elevated collision-loss figure is a strong warning that crash-related insurance costs can be high, but the final bill still depends on the location and severity of damage, parts required, labor rates, and whether the vehicle can be safely repaired.

2. Tesla Model S

The Tesla Model S also records unusually high collision losses in the same HLDI-based dataset. Its collision-loss measure was 116% above the average for all passenger vehicles for the 2022 to 2024 model years.

That places it close to the Model X in this insurance comparison, although the figure is not an average repair invoice and should not be presented as a direct percentage increase in repair bills.

The Model S combines an electric powertrain with a large touchscreen interface, electronic controls, driver-assistance equipment, and a body structure that requires model-specific repair procedures.

Following a collision, the repair process may involve more than replacing a damaged bumper or door. Depending on the impact, technicians may need to inspect wiring, sensors, suspension components, and high-voltage systems, then perform the required diagnostic checks.

A particularly important consideration is the difference between visible damage and the full extent of the impact. A damaged exterior panel may conceal problems with mounting points or nearby components.

Continue reading.

Classic-car prices can change as collector tastes, auction results, restoration expenses, and economic conditions shift.

A model once considered a safe collectible can lose value when demand weakens, while an overlooked sports car or performance model may attract renewed interest.

These changes create opportunities for enthusiasts seeking affordable classics, but they also warn against assuming that age, rarity, or a famous badge guarantees appreciation. The key is to distinguish documented price declines from predictions about future demand.

This article examines six classics with evidence of falling valuations, explaining what influenced their markets and why buyers should look beyond reputation before making a purchase.

6 Classic Cars That Dropped in Value

1. 1968-1971 Mercury Cyclone

The Mercury Cyclone recorded the largest decline in Hagerty’s May 2025 report on five American classics losing value. Its valuation adjustment averaged 15% across the four condition categories used by the guide.

Hagerty linked the decline partly to weak auction results at Kissimmee and Scottsdale, two major events that can influence expectations across the muscle-car market.

Mercury offered the Cyclone with a variety of V8 engines, including small-block and big-block options. Its NASCAR connections and relationship to Ford’s Torino gave it genuine performance credentials, while its styling helped distinguish it from more common muscle cars.

The market weakness illustrates how collector demand can shift even when a car has a strong history. The Cyclone has a smaller following than some better-known American performance models, so buyers may become more cautious when auction competition declines. That does not mean every Cyclone has lost 15% of its selling price.

For prospective owners, the adjustment may create negotiating opportunities. A car needing cosmetic work or mechanical attention might become more accessible, but restoration expenses must be calculated before deciding that the asking price is attractive.

Engine specifications, originality, rust condition, and documentation can produce major differences in value between two Cyclones. A rare, well-preserved example may not follow the same path as an ordinary driver.

The Cyclone belongs in this article because its decline is documented and substantial. It demonstrates that even a distinctive muscle car can experience a market correction, reminding collectors to evaluate recent sales rather than rely on historical reputation alone.

2. 1965-1966 Ford Mustang GT

The first-generation Ford Mustang GT remains an icon of the pony-car era, yet Hagerty reported a 12% decline in values for these early GT models during the quarter covered by its May 2025 market review.

The figure represented a guide adjustment across condition categories, not a universal reduction in the price of every Mustang.

Ford sold more than one million Mustangs during the model’s first two years, making the original design a tremendous commercial success. GT versions added performance-focused equipment and could be ordered with V8 power. Their connection to the Shelby GT350 program further strengthened the early Mustang’s place in performance-car history.

High production numbers help explain why collector values can behave differently across individual examples. Buyers have many surviving cars to choose from, and ordinary configurations must compete with other examples offering different equipment, restoration quality, or documented histories.

Continue reading.

Car keys have changed dramatically since the 1950s. What began as a simple metal key used mainly to operate an ignition switch has developed into a sophisticated electronic device capable of locking doors, starting engines, opening trunks, and even replacing the physical key altogether.

Each decade introduced new ideas designed to improve convenience, security, and vehicle access. From traditional metal keys and separate door locks to transponder chips, remote keyless entry, smart keys, and smartphone-based digital access, the history of car keys reflects the wider development of automotive technology.

Looking at this evolution also shows how manufacturers have gradually moved from mechanical security toward electronic and connected vehicle systems.

1950s – The Traditional Metal Car Key

During the 1950s, car keys were primarily simple mechanical tools. They were made from metal and featured a pattern of cuts that matched the lock cylinder inside the vehicle. The key was inserted into the ignition, where turning it operated the ignition switch and allowed the driver to start the engine. Many vehicles also required a separate key for the doors or trunk.

Cars such as the Chevrolet Bel Air, Ford Thunderbird, and Volkswagen Beetle from this era used conventional mechanical key systems. The technology was straightforward because vehicle security depended mainly on the physical design of the lock and key. There were no electronic chips, remote controls, or wireless signals involved.

During this period, the ignition key became increasingly integrated into the starting process. Earlier vehicles could have separate controls for ignition and starting, but manufacturers gradually moved toward systems where turning the key through several positions controlled accessories, ignition, and the starter motor.

Car keys in the 1950s were also relatively basic in appearance. They were usually small metal blades with a simple head that provided a grip for turning the lock. There was little need for plastic housings because the key performed only a mechanical function.

The biggest advantage of these keys was simplicity. They were inexpensive to manufacture, easy for locksmiths to duplicate, and did not depend on batteries. Their weakness was security. Anyone who obtained a properly cut key could potentially operate the vehicle, while skilled thieves could sometimes defeat older mechanical locks.

1960s – Improved Ignition and Security

The 1960s brought gradual improvements to automotive locking and ignition systems. The basic metal key remained dominant, but manufacturers began paying more attention to theft prevention and the relationship between the ignition switch and the steering system.

Cars such as the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, and Volkswagen Beetle continued using conventional mechanical keys. The ignition cylinder became a familiar feature on the steering column or dashboard, depending on the vehicle design.

A significant development was the growing use of steering column locking systems. These systems made it harder to steer a vehicle after it had been parked and locked. The key therefore became part of a larger security mechanism rather than simply a tool for starting the engine.

Key designs also became more standardized within individual manufacturers. A single key could operate several functions, including the ignition, doors, and trunk. This reduced the need for drivers to carry multiple keys.

Continue reading.

Before GPS became a standard feature in cars, smartphones, ships, and aircraft, people relied on clever tools, scientific observations, and carefully developed techniques to find their way. From ancient sailors reading the stars to drivers following printed road maps, navigation has a long history shaped by human curiosity and practical necessity.

These earlier systems helped travelers cross oceans, explore unfamiliar territories, transport goods, and connect distant communities. Understanding seven navigation systems from before GPS reveals how people solved direction and distance problems using the knowledge and technology available to them throughout different periods of history.

1. Celestial Navigation – Finding Directions Through the Stars

Celestial navigation is among the oldest methods used to determine position and direction during long journeys. Travelers observed the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets to understand where they were and which direction they needed to follow. Ancient sailors depended heavily on these observations because open seas offered few visible landmarks.

By recognizing familiar star patterns and tracking their movement across the sky, navigators could maintain a reasonably consistent course. This knowledge developed gradually through repeated voyages, careful observation, and information passed between generations of sailors, merchants, and explorers.

The North Star, also called Polaris, became particularly useful for navigation in the Northern Hemisphere. It appears close to the north celestial pole, making it a reliable reference point for identifying north. Its height above the horizon also provides an approximate indication of latitude.

For example, someone observing Polaris from a location farther north would generally see it higher in the sky than someone observing it closer to the equator. Sailors learned to combine this observation with other signs, including prevailing winds, ocean currents, and the appearance of the coastline, to improve their understanding of their position.

The Sun provided another important reference for determining direction. In many regions, travelers observed its apparent movement from east to west to establish a general sense of orientation. More advanced navigators used instruments and mathematical tables to measure the Sun’s altitude at particular times.

With an accurate time reference and appropriate calculations, they could estimate their latitude. Determining longitude was much harder because it required comparing local time with the time at a known reference location. Reliable marine chronometers eventually made this calculation far more practical, particularly during the eighteenth century.

Celestial navigation became increasingly sophisticated as astronomical knowledge improved. Arab, Indian, Greek, Chinese, and European scholars contributed to the mathematical and observational traditions that supported navigation. Their methods were adapted to local environments, trade routes, and available instruments.

Sailors learned to recognize seasonal star patterns and understand how celestial bodies appeared at different latitudes. This knowledge was especially valuable during long ocean crossings, where even small errors in direction could result in substantial detours.

Written tables, navigational manuals, and teaching traditions helped preserve techniques that had previously depended heavily on experience.

Even after modern electronic navigation became available, celestial navigation retained practical value. Naval personnel, offshore sailors, and maritime training institutions continued teaching astronomical methods because they offered a way to determine position without relying on satellite signals.

Continue reading.

Choosing a vehicle that can accommodate a wheelchair or walker can make daily travel safer and less stressful. The right option depends on whether mobility equipment needs to be folded and stored, or whether a passenger must remain seated in a wheelchair during the journey.

Interior height, door opening, seat position, cargo space, and loading ease all matter. This guide reviews ten vehicles worth considering, from family minivans with conversion potential to compact SUVs suited to walkers and folded chairs. Always check the exact model year, local equipment options, and accessibility modifications before buying, because standard vehicles differ considerably.

1. Honda Odyssey

The Honda Odyssey is a family minivan worth considering for households that regularly transport a wheelchair user or someone who relies on a walker.

Its spacious cabin, sliding side doors, and flexible seating arrangement make everyday travel more manageable. Families can use the available interior space for passengers, bags, and mobility equipment without needing a large commercial vehicle.

One of the Odyssey’s practical advantages is its wide side-door opening. Sliding doors require less clearance than conventional hinged doors, which helps when parking in a narrow garage or busy car park. Caregivers can also find it easier to assist a passenger with entering and leaving the vehicle. The exact ease of access depends on the passenger’s mobility, seat position, and the height of the entry step.

For people who use a folding wheelchair, the Odyssey offers useful cargo flexibility. Depending on the seating configuration, a folded wheelchair can be stored behind the rear seats or in a larger cargo area when some seats are adjusted.

A compact walker generally requires less room, leaving more space for shopping, luggage, or other daily essentials. Measure the folded equipment before deciding where it will fit.

The Odyssey may also be a suitable starting point for a professionally modified accessible vehicle. Certain specialist conversions can provide a ramp, lowered floor, and additional room for a wheelchair user to enter and travel while remaining seated in the wheelchair. These modifications are not standard features of every Odyssey, and availability varies by country, model year, and conversion provider.

Before purchasing, check the distance between the ground and the cabin floor, the usable door opening, and the cargo dimensions. Ask the seller to demonstrate loading your actual wheelchair or walker.

If a passenger needs to remain in a wheelchair during the journey, confirm that an approved conversion provides suitable wheelchair restraints and occupant protection. A spacious cabin alone does not make a vehicle wheelchair accessible.

2. Toyota Sienna

The Toyota Sienna is another family minivan worth examining for households that need room for mobility equipment. Its three-row layout can accommodate several passengers while providing storage space for a folded wheelchair, rollator, or walking frame.

The minivan format can be especially useful for families who combine medical appointments with school runs, shopping, and longer journeys.

Sliding rear doors help reduce the space needed beside the vehicle when passengers enter or exit. This feature can be useful for a person who needs assistance standing up, transferring from a mobility aid, or moving slowly into the cabin.

Continue reading.

Vehicle recalls have surged since 2020. Modern cars carry more software, sensors, and electronics than ever. More parts mean more chances for something to fail. Regulators now see record recall activity.

Ford led the pack by a wide margin. In 2025, it broke the single-year record for recall campaigns by any automaker. Other brands followed close behind. Stellantis, General Motors, Tesla, and Honda all issued large campaigns.

This list ranks vehicles by how often their model lines appeared in federal recall filings. It draws on the federal recall database sorted by manufacturer. Some entries cover a model family rather than one trim.

A high recall count is not always bad news. It can show that a maker finds and reports defects. It can also show deep quality problems. Size matters too. Best-sellers collect more recalls because there are more of them on the road.

Still, patterns emerge. Software faults, rearview cameras, and fuel system flaws appear again and again. Fire risk and loss of drive power show up often. These are the defects regulators care about most.

Read each entry for the cause, the scale, and what owners should do. Recalls are free to fix at a dealer. If you own one of these vehicles, check it today. A short search by VIN takes minutes.

1. Ford F-150

The F-150 is America’s best-selling truck. It also sits near the top of the recall charts. Ford has issued dozens of campaigns on it since 2020. The scale is large because so many were built. Problems have ranged widely. Rearview camera failures have hit multiple model years.

A blank or frozen camera screen breaks federal rules. Ford has recalled well over a million vehicles for this issue across its lineup. Brake issues have also appeared. Some trucks risked losing brake fluid pressure or had faulty parking brake behavior.

Transmission faults caused unexpected downshifts on some trucks. That can lock the rear wheels at speed. Rear axle hardware has drawn recalls too. A loose part can cause loss of drive power.

The electric F-150 Lightning has its own record. Battery and software issues led to several stop-sale and recall actions. Ford says the volume reflects more aggressive self-reporting. Critics say rushed launches and complex parts are the cause.

Both views have some truth. Ford also faced heavy civil penalties for slow handling of rearview camera recalls. Owners often report repeat visits to the dealer. Parts shortages sometimes delay repairs for weeks.

Used buyers should check recall status before purchase. Open recalls follow the truck, not the owner. Most fixes are software updates or part swaps. They cost nothing at a franchised dealer.

If your F-150 shows a warning light, do not ignore it. Brake and drive-power faults can escalate fast. Treat the F-150 as a strong truck with a heavy recall history. Staying on top of notices matters.

2. Ford Explorer

The Explorer is Ford’s family SUV workhorse. Its redesign for 2020 brought a rocky start. Recalls began almost at launch. Several early campaigns involved rear suspension parts.

Continue reading.

Owning a car costs more than the sticker price. The real bill arrives slowly. It shows up in brake jobs, fluid services, and surprise repairs. Researchers tracked ten-year maintenance and repair costs across major brands. The spread between them is huge. One brand costs nearly three times as much as another.

Land Rover sits on top at $19,250. That is $12,050 more than Subaru at the bottom. It is also a wider gap than the whole spread among the other nine brands.

Subaru’s place on this list is the real shock. Buyers pick the brand for durability and low drama. Yet it still lands in the top ten for cost. Luxury badges explain most of the list. Complex electronics and costly parts push bills up. Specialist labor adds more.

The pattern holds across the board. More technology means more things to fail. Premium parts also cost more to replace. Here is the full ranking. Each entry explains where the money goes. Some of the reasons may surprise you.

1. Land Rover: $19,250

Land Rover leads by a wide margin. The ten-year cost works out to about $1,925 a year. No other brand comes close. These vehicles are built for rough terrain. They also carry heavy luxury equipment. That mix is expensive to keep running.

Air suspension is a common culprit. Air springs wear out with age. Compressors can fail too. A single corner replacement can run well into four figures. Many owners face it more than once.

The Range Rover and Discovery are known for this. Electronics add more trouble. Modern models carry dozens of control modules. A faulty sensor can trigger warnings across the dash.

Diagnosis alone can eat hours of labor. Dealers charge premium rates for that time. Independent shops often lack the right tools. Engines and drivetrains bring their own costs. Heavy bodies strain brakes and tires. Big wheels make replacement tires costly.

Parts also travel a long way. Many come from the United Kingdom. That raises both price and wait times. Depreciation compounds the pain. Used examples often sell cheap because owners fear repairs. Buyers then inherit worn components.

Warranty coverage matters a great deal here. Once it ends, bills climb fast. Many owners trade in before that point. The brand has improved in recent years. Newer models are more reliable than older ones. But the cost record still sets it apart.

2. Porsche: $14,090

Porsche takes second place at $14,090. That is roughly $1,409 a year. It is the sports car tax in action. Performance parts wear faster. Brakes, tires, and clutches take real abuse. Spirited driving speeds up the damage.

Brake costs show the gap clearly. Large rotors and multi-piston calipers are not cheap. Optional ceramic brakes cost several thousand dollars to replace.

Tires are another big line item. High-performance rubber wears quickly. Many models use different sizes front and rear. Routine service is pricey too. Oil changes need large volumes of synthetic oil. Dealer labor rates are high.

Older models carry known risks. Some early water-cooled flat-six engines had a bearing weakness. Repairs on those cars can be steep. The Cayenne and Macan add SUV complexity. Air suspension and all-wheel-drive systems raise costs. Parts are shared with other premium brands but still priced high.

Continue reading.

Cold weather is the quiet tax on every electric car. Batteries turn sluggish below freezing. Cabin heating draws real power. Cold air is also denser, so drag climbs.

The November 2025 winter range study looked at more than 30,000 vehicles. The fleet kept 78% of its maximum range at 32 degrees. At 20 degrees, that fell to 70%.

The gap between models is wide. The best car held 88% of its range. The worst held 69%. That is a huge swing in the same weather. One factor stands out above the rest. A heat pump is worth roughly 10 percentage points on its own. It moves heat instead of making it. That uses far less energy than a resistive heater.

Battery chemistry and thermal software matter too. So do weight, shape, and tires. Your own habits can shift the result as well. The list below runs from best to worst retention at 32 degrees. Each entry explains why the car likely landed there.

Treat it as a guide, not a guarantee. Your trim, climate, and driving style will change the numbers. Read on to find your car. Let us begin at the top.

1. Tesla Cybertruck

The Cybertruck leads the list. That is a surprise for such a blunt truck. Its thermal system explains most of it. Tesla built a heat pump into the design.

It recovers waste heat from the motors and electronics. That heat warms the pack and cabin. The battery is also very large. A deep buffer helps in cold weather.

Drag is high, but the heating strategy offsets much of it. The result is a strong retention figure. Precondition it while plugged in. You leave with a warm cabin and a warm pack. Winter becomes much easier. Few trucks manage this well.

2. Tesla Model X with Heat Pump

The Model X with a heat pump takes second place. The heat pump version is the key. It clearly beats older builds. Tesla routes waste heat through a central coolant manifold.

The heat goes where it is needed. The battery stays in a comfortable range. The Model X is big, heavy, and tall. Those traits cost energy in every season. Cold air makes the drag worse.

Even so, the efficient heating protects its range. That is the power of good thermal design. Older cars use resistive heating. They will not match this result. Check the build before buying.

3. Tesla Model S with Heat Pump

The Model S with a heat pump sits right behind. It shares the same efficient thermal design. The study treats it apart from older cars for good reason.

Its low, sleek body cuts through cold air well. That matters most at highway speeds. Aerodynamics gain value as temperatures fall. The heat pump trims the heating load sharply. More energy stays available for moving the car.

Earlier Model S cars lack this system. They lose more range in the cold. Check the model year before you buy. Precondition on shore power. Leave with a full, warm battery. Simple habits help.

Continue reading.

General Motors is reshaping its salaried workforce as it competes for software engineers, technology specialists, and other employees needed to develop its next generation of vehicles.

The Detroit-based automaker is using a five-tier performance-rating system that differentiates high achievers from employees judged to be falling short of expectations. At the same time, GM’s U.S. salaried workforce has reportedly declined from approximately 53,000 employees in August 2024 to around 40,000 by October 2026.

The changes reflect a broader transformation in the automotive industry, where established manufacturers must control costs while developing electric vehicles, software-defined cars, and advanced driver-assistance systems.

However, the system has also attracted criticism over fairness, employee morale, and the risk of discrimination claims.

How GM’s Five-Tier Performance Rating System Works

GM introduced its revised performance evaluation system in 2024, replacing a three-category structure with five ratings ranging from “significantly exceeds expectations” to “does not meet expectations.”

The company said the changes were intended to establish clearer expectations and improve accountability and reward employees whose contributions stand out. The ratings also influence employee bonuses, making performance reviews more consequential for salaried staff.

Under the system described in an internal memo reviewed by Reuters in August 2024, GM expected approximately 5% of employees to fall into its highest performance category. Those employees could receive bonuses equal to 150% of their target amount.

At the opposite end, around 5% were expected to receive the lowest rating, potentially facing corrective action that could include termination. Approximately 70% of employees were expected to receive the middle rating of “achieves expectations,” qualifying them for their full target bonuses.

This approach resembles what is commonly called forced ranking, in which an organization differentiates employees by placing a specified proportion into particular performance categories.

The term can be controversial because it suggests that a fixed share of workers must receive low ratings even when the entire team performs well.

The precise operation of GM’s system depends on its internal review procedures, but the reported distribution has raised questions about how managers assess employees and whether individual performance can be separated fairly from wider business conditions.

For GM, the stated rationale is to identify and retain employees whose work contributes most directly to the company’s objectives.

A more differentiated system can help management allocate bonuses and identify where additional support or performance improvement may be needed. It can also make expectations more explicit than a system in which most employees receive similar ratings.

However, performance reviews can be difficult to standardize across a company as large as GM. Engineers, software developers, manufacturing specialists, finance employees, and corporate managers do not necessarily have the same responsibilities or measurable outputs.

Some projects take years to complete, and their success may depend on decisions made by several departments. A rating system must account for those differences if it is to provide a meaningful picture of employee contributions.

The lowest rating also carries consequences beyond a smaller bonus. If it can lead to termination, employees may view the annual review as a direct assessment of job security. That can encourage greater accountability, but it can also create pressure if performance expectations are unclear or managers apply the criteria inconsistently.

Continue reading.

Volkswagen Group recorded a sharp decline in global vehicle deliveries during the third quarter of 2026, with weakening demand in China driving much of the downturn. The German automaker delivered 1.885 million vehicles worldwide between July and September, down 14.3% from the same period in 2025.

It was the company’s steepest quarterly decline in more than four years, highlighting the pressure facing established manufacturers in a market increasingly shaped by local competition, changing consumer preferences, and the transition to electric vehicles.

Deliveries also fell in North America and Western Europe, indicating that the challenge was not limited to China. For U.S. readers, the results illustrate how weakness in a major overseas market can affect a global automaker’s performance, investment decisions, and competitive strategy.

China’s Market Slump Drives Volkswagen’s Quarterly Decline

China remains Volkswagen Group’s largest individual market, making its performance especially important to the company’s global results. During the third quarter, deliveries in China fell 38.5% year over year to 405,800 vehicles.

For the first nine months of 2026, deliveries in the country declined 30.2%, from 1.974 million to 1.379 million vehicles. The scale of the contraction helps explain why Volkswagen’s worldwide total weakened so sharply despite more resilient results in some other markets.

Volkswagen has faced growing competition from Chinese manufacturers offering a wide range of vehicles, particularly electrified models.

Domestic companies have expanded their product portfolios and compete on pricing, technology, software features, and speed of product development. For international automakers, matching those offerings while maintaining profitability has become increasingly difficult.

The downturn in China extends beyond the shift from petrol-powered cars to electric vehicles. Volkswagen reported that the combustion-engine segment experienced a particularly sharp decline, while demand grew for its second-generation plug-in hybrids and range-extender models, suggesting that buyers are showing greater interest in alternative powertrain options.

That split suggests buyers’ preferences are changing unevenly across powertrains, putting pressure on manufacturers whose sales mix depends heavily on conventional vehicles.

Volkswagen’s extended executive committee member Martin Sander described the decline in China’s wider market as an industry-wide challenge.

The company is not alone in facing difficulties there. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz also reported weaker deliveries in China during the same period, reflecting the wider challenge for German automakers trying to defend their positions against local competitors.

China’s importance extends beyond the number of vehicles sold. The market is central to global automotive manufacturing, technology development, and supplier networks.

A sustained downturn can affect production planning, factory utilization, and the allocation of investment across regions. Volkswagen must therefore respond not only to lower sales but also to the competitive changes driving those results.

North America and Europe Also Face Pressure

Although China was the main source of Volkswagen’s decline, deliveries weakened in other important markets as well. North American deliveries fell 5.8% in the third quarter, while Western Europe recorded a 2.8% decline.

Central and Eastern Europe was an exception, with deliveries rising 1.4%. The regional differences show that Volkswagen’s performance depends on several markets, each facing different economic conditions and consumer trends.

Continue reading.

General Motors is expanding its connected-vehicle business with OnStar Fleet Intelligence, a new platform designed to help commercial operators manage vehicles, analyze operating data, and identify ways to reduce costs.

Announced on September 30, 2026, and reported by WardsAuto on October 8, the system brings fleet information and connected services into a unified dashboard, with artificial intelligence tools that allow managers to ask questions about vehicle usage in everyday language.

The launch addresses a practical challenge for businesses that depend on trucks, vans, and other work vehicles. Keeping a fleet running involves more than purchasing vehicles and scheduling maintenance.

Managers must track fuel consumption, monitor utilization, understand downtime, manage service plans, and coordinate vehicles across different locations. When that information sits in separate systems or requires manual reporting, identifying inefficiencies can become time-consuming.

GM’s new platform aims to make those tasks easier by turning connected-vehicle information into insights that managers can use in daily operations.

The potential benefits include better vehicle allocation, less unnecessary idling, more informed maintenance planning, and improved visibility into operating expenses. However, those gains will depend on the quality of the available data and whether businesses act on the insights the system provides.

How OnStar Fleet Intelligence Brings Fleet Data Together

OnStar Fleet Intelligence combines vehicle information and GM’s connected-services ecosystem through a single account. Rather than switching between separate tools for different fleet tasks, operators can use the platform to track vehicle orders, manage vehicles, review diagnostic information, and access connected services.

Available information includes fuel efficiency, electric-vehicle range, geofencing, and vehicle-protection features.

The unified approach is particularly relevant to businesses managing fleets that are growing or spread across multiple locations.

A company might have delivery vehicles operating in several cities, service trucks assigned to different teams, and replacement vehicles arriving over the course of a year. Keeping track of those assets can become more complicated as the fleet expands.

GM also says customers with a Fleet Account Number can link that account to the platform and manage the vehicles associated with it through a single login. The capability can include vehicles regardless of make, equipment, or OnStar plan, giving businesses with mixed fleets a way to consolidate at least some administrative tasks.

That distinction matters because commercial fleets do not always consist exclusively of vehicles from one manufacturer. A business may purchase different brands depending on vehicle size, availability, purchase price, or suitability for a particular job.

A centralized account can reduce the burden of managing relationships and information across a large collection of vehicles, although the available functions may vary depending on the vehicle and its connected-services capabilities.

The platform also supports vehicle-order tracking from submission through delivery, according to GM’s fleet website. This can help fleet managers plan vehicle replacements, coordinate assignments, and prepare for new assets before they arrive.

For companies that depend on vehicles to generate revenue, knowing when replacements will be delivered can be important for staffing and operational planning.

OnStar Fleet Intelligence also provides access to connected services and allows customers to renew software and service plans and connect vehicles through the platform. These administrative functions are intended to make fleet management less fragmented, rather than forcing operators to treat each vehicle as a separate account or task.

Continue reading.

Wholesale used-vehicle prices declined in September 2026 as depreciation accelerated across the U.S. market, creating challenges for dealerships, vehicle owners, and shoppers. Higher fuel costs are also influencing purchasing decisions, encouraging some buyers to consider more economical vehicles instead of large pickups and fuel-hungry SUVs.

According to Cox Automotive, the latest figures point to a market where vehicle values are moving in different directions depending on fuel efficiency, demand, and operating costs.

The changes could affect trade-in offers, dealer inventory strategies, and the affordability of used transportation as consumers weigh purchase prices against long-term ownership expenses.

September Wholesale Prices Reveal Growing Market Pressure

Cox Automotive’s Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index fell to 205.9 in September. After seasonal and other adjustments, the index declined 1.1% from August and stood 0.6% below September 2025.

Without those adjustments, wholesale prices dropped 1.3% month over month and 1.2% year over year. The figures suggest that depreciation was stronger than the usual seasonal pattern for September, when wholesale vehicle values commonly soften as the market moves into autumn.

The Manheim index tracks wholesale used-vehicle prices and is closely watched because it provides an indication of market conditions before they fully influence retail transactions. Dealers typically acquire many used vehicles through auctions, so changes in wholesale prices affect acquisition costs, inventory valuations, and potential profit margins.

When wholesale values decline, dealerships must be careful about how much they pay for vehicles. A model purchased at auction for a relatively high price may lose value before it reaches a retail buyer, forcing the dealer to reduce its asking price or accept a smaller profit. The risk increases when vehicles remain unsold for extended periods.

Cox Automotive reported that wholesale auction sales conversion reached 55.2% in September, down 1.1 percentage points from August and 1.9 percentage points below the recent three-year September average.

The three-year-old vehicle index also declined 1.7% during the month, exceeding its typical seasonal drop of approximately 1.5%. These results indicate that wholesale buyers and sellers were finding it harder to agree on prices.

Seasonality was not the only influence. Cox Automotive identified higher fuel expenses, elevated interest rates, and broader economic uncertainty as factors weighing on the market.

The absence of an Atlantic hurricane in September may also have reduced an occasional source of used-vehicle demand, since storms can damage cars and trucks and increase replacement purchases in affected regions. That factor provides context but does not, by itself, explain the decline.

The market is not necessarily experiencing a collapse in demand. Used vehicles remain essential for consumers who need transportation but cannot afford new-car prices.

Cox Automotive projected approximately 38.5 million used-vehicle sales in the United States for 2026, including around 20.5 million retail transactions. Those projections suggest relatively stable sales volumes despite pressure on wholesale values.

For dealers, the immediate challenge is managing inventory in a market where certain vehicles may lose value faster than expected. Careful auction bidding, quicker stock turnover, and realistic retail pricing can help limit losses when depreciation accelerates.

Rising Fuel Costs Shift Demand Away From Some Trucks and SUVs

Fuel expenses can significantly affect the appeal of a used vehicle, especially for drivers who travel long distances or use their vehicles for work. When gasoline and diesel prices rise, buyers may reconsider the cost of operating a large pickup or SUV and look more closely at vehicles that offer better fuel economy.

Continue reading.

Dealership acquisitions in the United States increasingly require buyers and sellers to look beyond revenue, profitability, and franchise value. The condition of a dealership’s property, its compliance with automaker branding standards, and the cost of future renovations can significantly affect its purchase price.

In a report published October 12, 2026, CBT News highlighted how facility image compliance is becoming an important factor in automotive acquisition negotiations, influencing investment returns and succession plans.

For dealer groups considering expansion, a dealership that appears financially attractive may require substantial additional capital before the buyer can realize the expected returns.

A showroom could need new signage, updated furniture, redesigned customer areas, or extensive structural work to meet a manufacturer’s standards. Those expenses can change the economics of a transaction, especially when several dealerships are being acquired together.

The issue also affects established owners preparing to sell or transfer their businesses to the next generation. If a major renovation is approaching, owners must decide whether to fund the investment, negotiate its timing, or sell before committing additional capital.

Facility compliance is therefore becoming an important part of acquisition planning rather than simply a maintenance concern.

Manufacturer Standards Can Increase Dealership Costs

Automakers use facility image programs to create a consistent identity across their dealership networks. Requirements can cover exterior architecture, signage, showroom layouts, furniture, customer waiting areas, and service departments.

These standards aim to reflect the brand’s identity and customer expectations, but they can also impose substantial financial obligations on dealership owners.

Julie O’Dwyer, director of client and OEM relations at Goree Architects, told CBT News that manufacturers typically refresh their image programs every seven to 10 years. Requirements and costs vary by brand. Some projects involve replacing signs, furniture, and finishes, while others require extensive remodeling or an entirely new building.

O’Dwyer said contractor estimates for new construction range from $250 to $600 per square foot. For a 40,000-square-foot dealership, that translates to approximately $10 million to $24 million before accounting for project-specific expenses. Land, site preparation, financing, permitting, and other costs can increase the final bill.

Renovating an existing building is not always the cheaper option. Older properties may need electrical, heating, ventilation, or structural upgrades before they can accommodate new layouts and branding requirements.

Buyers must establish whether adapting the existing property is economically practical or whether rebuilding makes more sense.

Facility requirements also differ between manufacturers. CBT News noted that Genesis has pursued dedicated buildings, while Nissan uses a tiered approach, and Toyota’s newer facility strategy allows greater customization.

Buyers therefore cannot assume that experience with one franchise will prepare them for the requirements of another.

Modernization may improve the customer experience and make dealership operations more efficient. However, those potential benefits must be weighed against construction costs, disruption, and the time needed to recover the investment.

A dealership’s building is part of its business value, but its future compliance obligations can turn an apparently attractive acquisition into a more expensive commitment.

Facility Compliance Is Changing Acquisition Negotiations

Facility requirements can directly influence how much a buyer is willing to pay for a dealership. During an acquisition, the parties must evaluate the operating business alongside the property and the capital needed to meet manufacturer standards. If significant renovations are approaching, buyers may adjust their offers to reflect those future expenses.

Continue reading.

Rust protection is one of the less visible parts of a new vehicle warranty, yet it can become important years after the original purchase. Manufacturers do not all define corrosion coverage in the same way.

Some provide protection against rust perforation for 12 years with no mileage limit, while others limit corrosion coverage to three years, with separate longer protection if rust eventually creates a hole through the body panel.

The distinction matters because surface corrosion, paint bubbling, and rust perforation are often treated differently under warranty. The following comparison examines U.S. manufacturer warranty terms and shows how much the protection can vary between brands, model years, and types of corrosion.

5 Brands With Rust Warranties Over Seven Years

1. BMW

BMW provides one of the longest corrosion protections available from a mainstream luxury manufacturer in the United States. Its 2026 New Vehicle Limited Warranty booklet provides a 12-year, unlimited-mile anti-corrosion warranty against rust perforation.

BMW explains that its corrosion protection comes from several manufacturing processes, including electrophoretic painting, additional protective coatings, and sealing of body sections.

The BMW 3 Series is a useful example because it represents one of the brand’s longest-running passenger-car lines. A buyer keeping the sedan for a decade can still be within the manufacturer’s corrosion-perforation period even after the basic vehicle warranty has ended.

The unlimited-mileage provision is particularly relevant to drivers who accumulate substantial mileage without replacing their vehicles frequently.

The BMW X5 provides a second example from the SUV segment. Its body is exposed to many of the same environmental conditions as other vehicles, but the factory warranty still provides the same extended anti-corrosion period under the applicable 2026 warranty terms.

BMW’s warranty language also makes clear that maintenance remains relevant. The company specifically recommends cleaning the underbody at least annually to remove mud, chemical deposits, and other material that can encourage corrosion.

That instruction illustrates the difference between a manufacturing-defect warranty and a promise against every type of rust.

The value of BMW’s 12-year term is therefore the long window for factory-related perforation claims. Owners who intend to keep a BMW for many years have more time to identify a qualifying corrosion issue before the manufacturer’s protection expires.

2. Porsche

Porsche gives its vehicles a 12-year corrosion-perforation limited warranty with no mileage limit in the United States.

Porsche’s warranty information states that the corrosion warranty begins on the same date as the New Vehicle Limited Warranty and continues for 12 years without a mileage restriction. It applies to original body panels that become completely perforated by corrosion from the inside out.

The Porsche 911 demonstrates how this policy applies to a sports car that may be retained as a long-term vehicle. Although owners often treat such vehicles differently from everyday transportation, the body panels remain subject to the same factory corrosion terms.

The Porsche Cayenne brings the same warranty concept into the SUV category. A Cayenne that remains in service well beyond the four-year/50,000-mile new-vehicle warranty can still have corrosion-perforation protection remaining. This creates a much longer distinction between mechanical warranty coverage and body corrosion coverage.

Continue reading.

Sticker price gets all the attention, yet the bills that arrive after you drive off the lot can sting just as much. Oil changes, tires, brakes, and the occasional surprise repair all add up across the first five years. The good news is that some cars cost far less to keep running than others. Using CarEdge’s estimates, this guide ranks 13 models from the lowest projected five-year repair and maintenance cost to the highest.

The spread is tight, running from $1,095 to $1,571, but every dollar counts when you’re budgeting. Keep in mind that your real costs depend on mileage, driving habits, location, and service history. Think of these numbers as a smart starting point, then read on.

1. Nissan Leaf

Keeping vehicle expenses under control can be easier when the car itself requires less routine attention. The Nissan Leaf earns the top spot on this list with an estimated five-year repair and maintenance bill of just $1,095, according to the supplied CarEdge figures.

For drivers considering an electric vehicle, that projection makes the Leaf an attractive starting point. Its fully electric powertrain eliminates several maintenance tasks associated with gasoline engines.

Owners do not need conventional engine oil changes, spark plug replacements, or exhaust system servicing. Regenerative braking can also reduce wear on the brake pads because the electric motor helps slow the vehicle while recovering energy.

The Leaf is designed primarily for everyday transportation rather than high-performance driving. It can suit commuters, students, and households seeking a vehicle for errands and regular trips. Its hatchback layout also provides useful cargo flexibility.

Still, a low projected maintenance bill does not guarantee that every owner will spend the same amount. Battery condition, tire wear, driving habits, and local labor rates can affect actual expenses.

Buyers should also consider driving range, charging access, and battery warranty coverage before making a purchase. For shoppers who want a straightforward electric vehicle with a low projected five-year maintenance burden, the Nissan Leaf deserves serious consideration.

2. Fiat 500e

Small cars can make daily driving less demanding, especially when parking space is limited, and most journeys take place in town. The Fiat 500e follows that approach with a compact body, fully electric powertrain, and an estimated five-year repair and maintenance cost of $1,178.

That figure places it second in this ranking, just $83 above the Nissan Leaf. The 500e is built for drivers who appreciate a smaller vehicle that feels suited to busy streets.

Its compact dimensions can make parking in crowded areas easier, while its electric drivetrain removes the need for conventional engine maintenance. There are no routine engine oil changes, and regenerative braking can help reduce brake wear in suitable driving conditions.

This car may appeal to city residents, couples, and commuters who rarely need a large cargo area. Its small footprint also makes it a practical choice for short trips to shops, offices, and other nearby destinations.

However, the 500e’s compact size may not suit every household. Buyers who regularly transport several passengers, carry bulky equipment, or take long highway journeys should assess their space and range requirements carefully.

Continue reading.

A new car in 1975 belonged to a very different automotive world. Drivers had fewer electronic aids, basic instrument panels, limited emissions controls, and far fewer choices beyond gasoline engines.

Today’s vehicles can combine computer-managed powertrains, extensive crash protection, touchscreen interfaces, connected services, and cameras that help drivers maneuver. The transformation has not been a straight march toward lighter, simpler, or cheaper cars.

Modern vehicles have gained power and technology, while their size and weight have also changed substantially. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data provide a useful way to measure these changes across five decades of American automotive history.

1. Engine Power Has Increased Dramatically

The average new vehicle sold in the United States in 1975 produced far less horsepower than a modern car. According to the EPA’s automotive trends data, average new-vehicle output was about 137 horsepower in model year 1975.

By model year 2024, that figure had reached 258 horsepower, an increase of approximately 88%. The change reflects decades of engine development, improved fuel delivery, electronic controls, turbocharging, and the growing availability of powerful SUVs and pickups.

The route to modern power was not immediate. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, manufacturers responded to fuel-economy requirements and higher gasoline prices by reducing vehicle weight and engine output.

The EPA reports that average new-vehicle horsepower fell from 137 in 1975 to about 102 in 1981. Output then generally climbed over subsequent decades as manufacturers developed more efficient engines and buyers increasingly selected larger, more powerful vehicles.

Today’s power gains are not limited to bigger engines. Turbochargers can produce more power from relatively small gasoline engines, while hybrid systems combine an engine with electric motors.

Battery-electric vehicles add another dimension because electric motors deliver strong torque without needing to build engine speed in the same way as a traditional combustion engine.

This represents a significant shift in everyday driving performance, as many modern vehicles can now deliver acceleration once associated with performance cars in earlier decades. However, horsepower alone does not determine how quickly a car accelerates or feels on the road. Factors such as gearing, vehicle weight, traction, and power delivery also play important roles.

The EPA’s figures demonstrate the broad change in average output, not the performance of every individual car.

2. Vehicle Weight and Size Have Changed, Not Simply Increased

A modern new car is not automatically heavier than a 1975 model by a fixed amount, but the U.S. fleet has changed substantially.

EPA data shows that average new-vehicle weight fell from approximately 4,060 pounds in 1975 to about 3,200 pounds in 1981, as fuel-economy pressure and higher gasoline prices encouraged smaller, lighter designs.

The trend eventually reversed, with average vehicle weight rising to 4,111 pounds in 2004 and approximately 4,354 pounds for the 2024 model year.

That long-term increase reflects more than heavier materials. Buyers have shifted toward SUVs and pickups, which generally weigh more than traditional small sedans.

Modern vehicles also carry equipment that was uncommon or unavailable in 1975, including multiple airbags, reinforced safety structures, extensive electronics, larger infotainment screens, and additional driver-assistance hardware. Battery-electric vehicles can add considerable mass because of their battery packs.

Continue reading.

Choosing an SUV for camper towing requires careful attention to towing capacity, engine performance, passenger comfort, and cargo space. A suitable vehicle makes weekend camping trips easier while providing enough power to pull a small travel trailer safely.

From compact SUVs designed for lightweight campers to larger models capable of handling heavier loads, buyers have several practical options. Understanding each vehicle’s strengths helps drivers select a model that matches their travel plans, budget, and everyday needs. This guide highlights ten SUVs worth considering, along with their towing capabilities, useful features, and important factors to check before purchasing.

1. Jeep Grand Cherokee: A Strong Choice for Camper Towing

The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a practical option for drivers who want a comfortable family SUV with substantial towing capability. Depending on the model year, engine, and configuration, its maximum towing capacity can reach approximately 6,200 pounds.

This gives properly equipped versions enough capacity for many small travel trailers, compact hard-sided campers, and larger pop-up trailers. Buyers should confirm the precise rating for their selected vehicle before choosing a camper.

One of the Grand Cherokee’s main advantages is its combination of road comfort and rugged engineering. Its available four-wheel-drive systems help provide traction on gravel roads, uneven campground entrances, and slippery surfaces.

This is useful for travelers who prefer campsites away from busy tourist areas. However, four-wheel drive does not increase every version’s towing rating automatically, so checking the specific configuration remains important.

Interior comfort also makes this SUV attractive for extended trips. Depending on the trim, drivers can find supportive seating, modern infotainment features, climate control, and useful storage compartments.

Families can carry camping equipment, clothing, food, and other essentials without needing a separate vehicle. Available driver-assistance features may also help reduce the workload during long highway journeys.

Fuel consumption deserves attention before purchasing a Grand Cherokee for regular camper trips. Towing increases the workload on the engine, and fuel economy generally falls when pulling a trailer, particularly on steep roads or at highway speeds.

Buyers should compare engine options based on their expected trailer weight, annual mileage, and typical routes instead of selecting a model based solely on its maximum towing figure.

For campers who want a capable vehicle for daily commuting and outdoor holidays, the Grand Cherokee deserves serious consideration. It is particularly suitable for small travel trailers that require more towing headroom than many compact crossovers provide.

Check the owner’s manual, payload sticker, hitch specifications, and trailer tongue weight before connecting a camper. These figures determine whether the chosen vehicle can safely manage the complete load.

2. Toyota 4Runner: Built for Outdoor Adventures

The Toyota 4Runner appeals to drivers who enjoy camping in remote locations and want a rugged SUV for mixed driving conditions.

Depending on the model year and configuration, maximum towing capacity reaches approximately 6,000 pounds. This rating places properly equipped versions among the more capable midsize choices for small campers. Actual limits depend on the vehicle’s specifications and installed equipment.

Continue reading.

Used-car values can change sharply in just 12 months, even for vehicles with strong reputations, premium badges, or popular body styles. In its June 2026 study, iSeeCars compared average listing prices for one-to-five-year-old used vehicles in the United States with prices from June 2025.

The results put the Lincoln Corsair hybrid at the top of the price-decline ranking, followed by the Porsche 911. Luxury SUVs, a sports car, a compact SUV, and full-size pickups also made the top 10. These figures reflect changes in average asking prices, not guaranteed losses on every individual vehicle.

1. Lincoln Corsair Hybrid

The Lincoln Corsair Hybrid recorded the largest percentage drop among the vehicles in iSeeCars’ June 2026 ranking. Its average used listing price declined by $6,454 over 12 months, taking it from an implied $43,766 in June 2025 to $37,312 in June 2026.

That 14.7% reduction was substantially greater than the 1.3% decline recorded across the used-car market in the same study.

The Corsair is a compact luxury SUV designed for buyers who want a premium cabin and a more manageable footprint than a larger sport utility vehicle. Its hybrid version adds an electrified powertrain to that package. However, the latest figures show that a hybrid system and luxury branding do not automatically protect a vehicle from short-term price declines.

The study does not establish why the Corsair hybrid’s average price fell so sharply. Changes in the age, mileage, trim, equipment, and availability of vehicles listed for sale can affect the average from one year to the next. The result should therefore be understood as a market comparison, not proof that every Corsair hybrid lost 14.7% of its value.

For shoppers, the decline offers a useful reason to compare used Corsair hybrids carefully. Check the vehicle’s service history, battery and hybrid-system condition, accident records, and remaining warranty coverage.

Also compare equivalent model years and equipment levels. A lower average price can improve affordability, but the condition and history of the individual SUV remain essential to judging whether a particular listing represents good value.

2. Porsche 911

The Porsche 911 ranked second by percentage decline, but its high price produced the largest dollar reduction in the top 10. iSeeCars reported an average used listing price of $118,025 in June 2026, down $14,063, or 10.6%, from a year earlier. The implied June 2025 average was $132,088.

At first glance, that drop may seem surprising for a sports car known for its performance and enthusiast following. Yet the 911 name covers multiple versions with different engines, performance levels, body styles, and equipment.

A market-wide average combines vehicles that may differ considerably in price, so the result cannot be applied equally to every Carrera, Turbo, or GT model.

This distinction matters because the study measures the average listing prices of used vehicles between one and five years old. It does not show that a specific 911 configuration fell by exactly 10.6%, nor does it establish that every model year experienced the same change. A shift in the mix of versions available for sale can influence the average.

The findings are also not a five-year depreciation ranking. A model can experience a notable price decline over one year while still retaining value comparatively well over a longer ownership period.

Continue reading.

A sales drop does not always mean a bad car. Sometimes it means a plan. Sometimes it means a policy change nobody controlled. This list ranks 29 models by percentage decline this year. The steepest falls come first. The mildest come last.

But the ranking hides three very different stories. The cause matters far more than the number. A 100% drop and a 20% drop can mean the opposite of what you expect.

Eight of these nameplates are run-out models. Their makers chose to end them. Those collapses are deliberate and often healthy for the business.

Seven are electric vehicles, and that is a different problem entirely. The federal EV tax credit ended last year. Cheap leases disappeared with it. Buyers who loved the monthly price walked away. Demand fell faster than automakers expected. Several EV programs are now being rethought.

Tariffs hit many imported models as well. Japan and Korea build a lot of these cars. Higher import costs pushed sticker prices up. Other drops come from generation changes.

Old stock sells out before the new model arrives. The gap looks like a collapse but is only a pause. Read each entry with its cause in mind. The percentage shows how far a car fell. The reason shows whether anyone should worry.

1. Ford Edge: down 100% to zero

The Edge is gone. Ford ended production after the 2024 model year. Nothing is left on dealer lots. It was a dependable two-row crossover for years. Buyers liked its size and fair price. Many families kept one for a decade.

Ford shifted its money toward trucks, the Explorer, and electric projects. The Edge never received a hybrid. Rivals added efficiency while it stood still.

The Escape and Bronco Sport cover similar ground. Ford loses little by dropping it. A zero here means a planned exit, not a failed car. It is the cleanest example of a deliberate collapse. Its fate was sealed years ago. Ford simply waited for the last units to sell through. Nobody should read panic into this.

2. Hyundai Nexo: down 100% to zero

The Nexo is a hydrogen fuel-cell SUV. The first generation wound down before this year. American dealers had almost nothing left to sell. Hydrogen fueling is the core problem. California has very few stations.

Many of them are unreliable or closed. Hydrogen also costs far more per mile than gasoline. Owners reported long drives just to refuel. Buyers reasonably stayed away.

A newer generation exists overseas. Its US volume is small. The zero reflects missing supply and missing infrastructure, not a sudden change in taste. Hyundai still believes in hydrogen, but America is not ready. Fuel-cell cars need stations before they need buyers. Until that changes, volumes will stay tiny. Hydrogen remains a long-term experiment.

3. Acura ZDX: down 99.1% to 108

The ZDX was Acura’s first full EV. General Motors built it on the same platform as the Honda Prologue. It had a very short life. Acura cut the model quickly. It never found a real audience.

The 108 sales are probably leftover stock. Pricing hurt it badly. It cost more than the Prologue for similar hardware. Luxury buyers wanted more for the premium.

Continue reading.

The electric vehicle market has grown rapidly as drivers seek lower running costs, modern technology, and cleaner transportation. However, some electric cars have attracted complaints involving battery performance, charging difficulties, software faults, build quality, and unexpected repairs.

Understanding these concerns can help buyers make informed decisions before choosing an electric vehicle. This article examines 14 electric vehicles associated with notable owner complaints and reliability concerns. The list is an editorial overview, not an official numerical ranking.

IIHS does not rank electric vehicles by complaint volume, and exact positions require comparable complaint records from the relevant regulatory databases.

1. Tesla Model 3

The Tesla Model 3 has become a prominent electric sedan because of its driving range, acceleration, charging access, and minimalist interior. Its widespread adoption also means that owner experiences cover many driving conditions and production years.

Reported concerns have included inconsistent panel alignment, paint imperfections, suspension noises, touchscreen problems, and difficulties obtaining timely repairs in certain markets.

Some owners have reported issues involving steering components, suspension parts, or unusual noises over rough roads. These concerns can vary by production year, mileage, road conditions, and maintenance history. A noise does not necessarily indicate a serious defect, but unexplained changes in steering feel or suspension performance deserve a professional inspection.

The cabin design has also generated mixed reactions. Many vehicle functions depend on the central touchscreen, which can make software reliability especially important.

Screen freezes, connectivity problems, or interface changes may affect everyday convenience. Buyers should test the display, cameras, climate controls, navigation, and charging functions before purchasing a used example.

Charging and range concerns require careful evaluation. Actual driving distance depends on temperature, speed, tire condition, battery age, and climate-control use. Cold weather can reduce available range, while repeated high-speed driving increases energy consumption. A used Model 3 should undergo an appropriate battery and charging-system assessment when its history raises concerns.

The Model 3 remains worth considering, but buyers should not rely solely on its reputation or advertised specifications. Review maintenance records, inspect bodywork, verify outstanding recalls, and check the condition of suspension components. A well-maintained vehicle with a documented service history may offer a substantially better ownership experience than an example with unresolved faults.

2. Tesla Model Y

The Tesla Model Y combines an electric powertrain with crossover practicality, generous cargo capacity, and software-based features. Its popularity has brought considerable attention to its assembly quality, suspension behavior, interior fittings, and electronic systems.

Reported owner concerns have varied across production periods, making model year and manufacturing history important when comparing individual vehicles.

Panel gaps, paint finish, interior trim, and noises from the cabin have appeared in owner discussions about some examples. Such concerns do not affect every Model Y, but they demonstrate why a careful physical inspection matters. Buyers should examine doors, tailgate alignment, weather seals, seat fittings, and exterior paint under suitable lighting.

Ride comfort has also been a concern for some drivers. Suspension tuning, wheel size, tire pressure, and road quality can influence how the vehicle handles bumps. Larger wheels may provide a sportier appearance, yet they can make road imperfections more noticeable. A test drive on several road surfaces can reveal whether the ride suits the buyer.

Continue reading.

Buying an electric vehicle means trusting it to charge when you need it. A failed charging session can disrupt a commute, delay a road trip, or leave you searching for another charging station.

That is why charging reliability deserves as much attention as driving range, performance, and price. Some electric vehicles have earned positive reports for dependable charging, while others have experienced hardware or software problems that deserve closer attention.

This ranking compares 11 EVs using available information about charging-system performance, reported faults, and known technical concerns. However, verified, comparable failure-rate figures are not available for every model, so the order should be treated as an informed guide rather than a definitive statistical ranking. Here is what prospective buyers should know before choosing their next electric vehicle.

1. BMW i4

The BMW i4 ranks first in this list because the supplied information describes its charging performance as stable, with relatively few reported charging-port and communication problems. For drivers who depend on reliable charging, this is an encouraging sign.

The i4 combines a premium electric powertrain with a familiar four-door design. Beyond acceleration and cabin comfort, owners need charging that fits naturally into their daily routines.

Reliable connections to compatible chargers can reduce frustration during home charging and public charging stops. Reports of a few problems do not establish a verified failure rate.

The available information provides no comparative data showing the percentage of owners experiencing charging faults, failed sessions per thousand attempts, or warranty repair frequency.

Its first-place position reflects a qualitative assessment rather than proven statistical superiority. Prospective buyers should inspect the charging port, review available charging history, and confirm that the equipment functions correctly.

Used vehicles should also be checked for outstanding recalls and documented electrical repairs. Buyers should consider whether the i4’s charging capabilities suit their daily driving requirements and access to charging stations.

Testing the vehicle with compatible equipment before purchase can help identify potential problems. The available description suggests dependable charging behavior and relatively few reported connection issues.

However, these indications do not guarantee that every BMW i4 will charge without problems.

2. Tesla Model Y

The Tesla Model Y ranks second, supported by its integrated charging network and practical electric SUV design. Access to Tesla’s charging stations can simplify trip planning and help drivers locate compatible charging points along supported routes.

The Model Y offers generous passenger space, useful cargo capacity, and versatility for commuting, errands, and longer journeys. Convenient charging can improve everyday ownership, particularly for households that rely heavily on one vehicle.

The supplied information describes its vehicle-side charging reliability favorably. However, successful charging depends on more than the vehicle itself.

Damaged connectors, station communication faults, power interruptions, and network outages can prevent charging even when the car operates correctly.

A failed charging session may result from a vehicle malfunction, a station problem, payment difficulties, authentication errors, or communication failures between the vehicle and charger.

These incidents should not automatically be classified as vehicle defects. Before purchasing a used Model Y, buyers should examine service records, confirm applicable recall completion, and test the charging system.

Continue reading.

Buying an electric vehicle is a big decision, and the real test begins after the first drive home. Does the car deliver the comfort, performance, technology, and everyday convenience its owner expected? A 2025 GreenCars owner-satisfaction study offers useful clues by ranking electric vehicles according to reported first-year ownership experiences. The BMW iX takes the top spot, with the BMW i4 and Hyundai Ioniq 6 following close behind.

Several other popular electric cars and SUVs also earn places on the list, giving prospective buyers a broader view of what current owners appreciate. From premium performance to practical family transportation, these 11 electric vehicles offer different reasons to feel good about going electric. Here is how they rank and what makes each one worth considering.

1. BMW iX (highest satisfaction)

The BMW iX claims first place with a satisfaction score of 790 out of 1,000, making it the highest-ranked vehicle in the GreenCars study. That result suggests owners have plenty to appreciate about this premium electric SUV during their first year of ownership.

Its appeal begins with a refined cabin, modern technology, and strong electric performance. The iX is designed for drivers who want an upscale daily vehicle without giving up the quiet operation and smooth acceleration associated with electric power.

Its SUV body also gives it the versatility needed for commuting, shopping, and weekend trips. Comfort plays an important role in the ownership experience.

A thoughtfully designed interior, supportive seating, and a composed ride can make routine journeys feel more pleasant. BMW also places considerable emphasis on digital features, giving drivers access to vehicle information and convenience functions through its modern infotainment system.

Of course, a high satisfaction score does not mean every owner has identical experiences. Purchase price, charging access, insurance costs, and personal preferences can all influence long-term happiness.

Still, the iX’s leading score makes it an appealing choice for shoppers seeking a luxurious electric SUV. Buyers who value premium appointments, smooth driving manners, and an advanced cabin have good reasons to place it near the top of their shortlist.

2. BMW i4 (2nd in premium segment)

Seven points separate the BMW i4 from the top-ranked iX. With a score of 783 out of 1,000, this electric four-door demonstrates that drivers can appreciate an EV without choosing a large SUV.

The i4 combines BMW’s familiar driving-focused approach with an electric powertrain. Its sleek profile gives it a more traditional passenger-car appearance, making it attractive to motorists who prefer a lower seating position and a sportier shape.

Depending on the version selected, buyers can prioritize efficiency, brisk acceleration, or stronger performance. Inside, the i4 offers a premium environment with contemporary displays, connected features, and a driver-oriented cockpit.

These touches matter because satisfaction is rarely determined by acceleration alone. Easy-to-use controls, comfortable seating, and a cabin that feels well assembled can make daily ownership more rewarding.

Its car-based design may also appeal to drivers who do not need the extra height or cargo flexibility of an SUV. Commuters and couples, in particular, may find its proportions practical for regular travel.

Continue reading.

Modern vehicles come with features such as advanced safety systems, smartphone integration, navigation, and customizable driving settings. However, these conveniences may come at the expense of personal privacy. Researchers have raised concerns about how automakers collect, store, and share data generated by drivers and their vehicles.

A widely discussed automotive privacy investigation by the Mozilla Foundation found serious privacy problems across 25 major car brands, reporting that all failed its privacy review. This article examines 21 popular car models, the information their vehicles may collect, how that information is gathered, and what drivers can do to protect their privacy.

What Researchers Discovered About Car Privacy

Modern vehicles are no longer simply machines that transport people from one place to another. Many now contain internet-connected computers, GPS receivers, cameras, microphones, wireless communication systems, and smartphone integration. These technologies help drivers navigate traffic, monitor vehicle performance, receive maintenance alerts, and control certain functions remotely.

However, they can also create extensive records about vehicle use and driver behaviour. Researchers studying automotive privacy have repeatedly warned that consumers may not fully understand how much information their vehicles generate or which organisations can access it. The privacy debate is therefore not just about technology collecting data, but also about transparency, consent, and the limits placed on its use.

A widely reported automotive privacy study by the Mozilla Foundation, published in 2023, examined the privacy policies of 25 major car brands. Its researchers concluded that all 25 failed the organisation’s privacy review. The investigation raised concerns about personal information, location tracking, sensitive data, and the possibility of sharing information with outside organisations.

This finding became a prominent warning for car buyers because connected features are now common across budget vehicles, family SUVs, luxury sedans, and electric cars.

However, Mozilla’s investigation assessed privacy policies and practices rather than conducting a single technical experiment on 21 vehicles. Its results should not be confused with the separate vehicle network study discussed below.

A later investigation reported by Consumer Reports examined 21 vehicles and 30 companion smartphone applications, looking at network connections made by cars and their associated apps. The researchers examined traffic under different conditions, including when vehicles were stationary and when they were being driven.

They also investigated connections to advertising, tracking, analytics, and other outside services. The results illustrated how vehicles and their applications can communicate with multiple organisations rather than sending every request exclusively to the manufacturer.

This technical approach offered a different perspective from reading privacy policies because it observed network activity directly. Nevertheless, the findings reflected a limited sample of vehicles and software configurations rather than every car sold worldwide.

The study reported that 19 of the 21 tested vehicles contacted at least one third party over Wi-Fi. In the associated application testing, 28 of the 30 apps contacted at least one advertising or analytics company, while seven transmitted personally identifiable information to an outside company. Such information can include a vehicle identification number, a name, or precise location information.

Researchers also recorded different levels of advertising and analytics activity among the tested cars. The Tesla Model 3, for example, contacted 34 advertising, tracking, and analytics domains in the reported test, while the Tesla Cybertruck contacted 23.

Continue reading.

Hybrid vehicles combine gasoline engines with electric motors, but their appeal goes beyond fuel savings. Some models have built strong reputations for reaching high mileage, supported by established hybrid systems and years of real-world ownership data.

A SlashGear report citing iSeeCars longevity research highlighted several hybrids with a greater likelihood of reaching 250,000 miles than the average vehicle. That does not guarantee every example will last longer than a gasoline car, and hybrid batteries are not immune to aging.

Still, these five models deserve attention from American buyers seeking long-term transportation, provided maintenance and vehicle condition remain priorities.

1. Lexus RX Hybrid: A Luxury SUV With a 28.9% Chance of Reaching 250,000 Miles

The Lexus RX Hybrid leads this group with a 28.9% predicted chance of reaching 250,000 miles, according to iSeeCars’ 2026 longevity study. That is approximately 5.4 times the study’s 5.4% average for vehicles overall, putting this luxury SUV among the strongest long-term ownership candidates in the research.

Its appeal comes from combining a comfortable cabin with a hybrid powertrain designed to improve fuel efficiency in everyday driving. Depending on the generation, RX hybrids use different engine and electric-motor configurations, so buyers should compare specifications for the exact model year rather than assume every version performs identically.

The 250,000-mile figure needs context. It is a statistical estimate based on vehicle data, not a guarantee that an individual RX Hybrid will reach that distance without expensive repairs.

Maintenance, driving conditions, accident history, and battery condition all influence a vehicle’s useful life. Hybrid components can last a long time, but they are not immune to wear.

For used-car shoppers, a complete service history is especially valuable. Check for warning lights, unusual engine behavior, suspension wear, and evidence of neglected maintenance. A qualified technician can assess the hybrid system and identify problems that a short test drive might miss.

The RX Hybrid’s ranking makes it a compelling choice for drivers who want luxury and the possibility of long-term ownership. Still, its purchase price and repair costs may exceed those of a mainstream hybrid. A well-maintained example is the priority, not simply the lowest-mileage or newest one available.

2. Toyota Highlander Hybrid: Family Space With a 20.7% Longevity Probability

For families needing three-row seating, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid offers a combination of passenger space and fuel-saving hybrid technology.

iSeeCars’ 2026 study gives it a 20.7% predicted chance of reaching 250,000 miles, making it the second-highest-ranked hybrid in the study and about 3.8 times as likely to reach that milestone as the average vehicle.

The Highlander Hybrid’s appeal is practical rather than flashy. Its gasoline engine works with electric motors to reduce fuel consumption, particularly in stop-and-go driving.

The latest U.S. version uses a 2.5-liter four-cylinder hybrid system producing 243 horsepower, with electronic all-wheel drive standard. Specifications vary by model year, so older used examples should be evaluated according to their own equipment and powertrain.

Long-distance durability still depends on upkeep. Regular oil changes, cooling-system maintenance, inspections, and prompt attention to warning lights help protect the vehicle as mileage accumulates. Buyers should also check hybrid-system operation and the condition of the battery cooling intake where applicable.

Continue reading.

A half tank usually feels like a warning that a fuel stop is getting close, but that assumption does not hold for every car. Efficient powertrains, useful fuel-tank capacity, and a strong economy can turn half a tank into hundreds of miles.

For this list, the comparison uses U.S.-market specifications and EPA-estimated combined fuel economy. The estimated half-tank distance is calculated by multiplying tank capacity by combined MPG and dividing by two.

The result is a benchmark, not a promise, because speed, weather, traffic, cargo, tires, and driving style can change fuel consumption for many drivers.

1. Hyundai Sonata Hybrid

The 2026 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid shows why a midsize sedan does not need an enormous fuel tank to deliver long stretches between stops. Hyundai lists a 13.2-gallon tank for the hybrid, while the Blue Hybrid reaches an EPA-estimated 51 MPG combined.

Those figures produce a mathematical full-tank range of about 673 miles and approximately 337 miles from half the tank. Hyundai USA

The result is notable because the Sonata is not a tiny economy car. It uses a 2.0-liter four-cylinder hybrid powertrain with a 39-kW electric motor and 192 combined horsepower.

Hyundai rates the Blue Hybrid at 47 MPG city and 56 MPG highway, so the efficiency is not dependent on a single favorable rating. The other hybrid trims are rated at 47 MPG combined, making the Blue the appropriate configuration for this calculation. Hyundai USA

The hybrid system can use electric assistance during driving and recover energy through regenerative braking. That reduces how often the gasoline engine must provide all the propulsion energy, helping the car turn its fuel into more miles.

For a driver whose gauge is near halfway, an estimated 337 miles represents a substantial amount of travel under EPA-style conditions. It could cover several commuting days or a large portion of a road trip before another fuel stop.

Real-world distance will vary. Highway speed, winter temperatures, passengers, cargo, traffic, and driving style can all reduce fuel economy. The useful takeaway is therefore the relationship between the 13.2-gallon tank and the 51 MPG rating, not a guaranteed 337-mile reserve.

2. Lexus ES 350h

The 2026 Lexus ES 350h proves that impressive half-tank range is not limited to compact or budget-oriented vehicles. Its 14.5-gallon fuel tank is substantial, while the front-wheel-drive version carries an EPA-estimated 46 MPG combined rating. That combination works out to roughly 667 miles on a full tank and about 334 miles from half. Car and Driver

The ES 350h pairs a 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine with Lexus’ sixth-generation hybrid system and produces 244 net combined horsepower. U.S. EPA figures give the front-drive model 48 MPG city and 44 MPG highway. Lexus also offers all-wheel drive, but the FWD version is the relevant configuration because it has the stronger combined rating. Car and Driver

What makes the result striking is the vehicle’s size and mass. The 2026 ES 350h Premium FWD is listed at about 4,001 pounds, yet its hybrid powertrain keeps official fuel consumption low enough to put more than 300 miles inside a theoretical half tank. Edmunds

There is a practical advantage for long-distance drivers. A large tank gives the ES 350h useful capacity, while the hybrid system reduces the rate at which those gallons disappear. That combination can mean fewer fuel stops without requiring a small economy car.

Continue reading.

A car’s safety performance matters beyond the people sitting inside it. Pedestrians and cyclists have little physical protection when a collision occurs, making a vehicle’s front-end design and automatic emergency braking systems particularly important.

Euro NCAP assesses these risks through its Vulnerable Road User category, which combines impact protection with technologies designed to detect and avoid hitting pedestrians and cyclists.

The seven cars in this list recorded some of the strongest published results in recent assessments. Their scores reflect European test specifications and years, so they should not be treated as direct U.S. safety ratings or guarantees of real-world outcomes.

1. Mercedes-Benz CLA: 93% Vulnerable Road User Protection

The Mercedes-Benz CLA achieved 93% in Euro NCAP’s Vulnerable Road User category in its 2025 assessment, placing it among the strongest performers for protecting people outside the vehicle.

The new-generation compact luxury car also recorded 94% for adult occupant protection, 89% for child occupant protection, and 85% for safety assist, earning a five-star rating.

That 93% figure represents more than the softness of the front bumper or bonnet. Euro NCAP evaluates how the vehicle’s front end manages impacts involving pedestrians while also testing systems designed to prevent collisions.

Automatic emergency braking can be particularly valuable when a driver fails to react quickly enough to someone crossing the road or walking near the vehicle’s path.

The CLA’s results stand out because its pedestrian-related score sits alongside strong occupant protection. However, the category also includes cyclist protection, so the 93% should not be interpreted as a pedestrian-only impact score.

Nor does it mean the car can prevent every collision. Performance depends on circumstances such as speed, lighting, road layout, and whether the detection system can identify the person in time.

For U.S. buyers, an important caveat is that Euro NCAP evaluates European-market vehicles using its own testing protocols. Features and specifications may differ from those of U.S. models, so the reported percentage should not be interpreted as an official U.S. crash-test rating.

Even with those qualifications, the CLA provides a useful example of how modern vehicle safety combines structural design with active collision avoidance. Its result shows why pedestrian protection deserves attention alongside traditional occupant crash-test scores.

2. Mazda CX-5: 93% Vulnerable Road User Protection

The Mazda CX-5 matched the highest published score in this selection, achieving 93% for vulnerable road user protection in Euro NCAP’s December 2025 results.

It also earned a five-star rating, with 90% for adult occupant protection, 89% for child occupant protection, and 83% for safety assist. These results place pedestrian and cyclist protection among the vehicle’s strongest assessed areas.

The CX-5 is a family SUV, making its front-end design and collision-avoidance technology particularly relevant in everyday settings. Pedestrians may cross in front of a vehicle at junctions, walk beside parked cars, or enter its path in heavy urban traffic.

Euro NCAP evaluates how vehicles protect vulnerable road users during impacts and how effectively their safety systems respond to potential collisions.

Its 93% score reflects the combined Vulnerable Road User assessment, not a claim that the SUV protects pedestrians perfectly in every crash. The category also covers cyclists and includes active safety performance.

Continue reading.

Euro NCAP’s child occupant protection score offers a closer look at how well a vehicle protects younger passengers in simulated crashes and accommodates child-restraint systems.

The percentage is separate from the car’s star rating, which combines four assessment categories. For this list, the focus is on vehicles with exceptionally high published child-protection scores, including several models reaching 93%.

These are European test results, not U.S. crash-test ratings, and equipment can differ between markets. Scores are presented with their test years in mind, because Euro NCAP regularly strengthens its procedures, and older results are not directly equivalent to newer ones.

1. Polestar 3: 93% Child Occupant Protection

The Polestar 3 set a notable benchmark when Euro NCAP announced its results in April 2025. The five-seat electric SUV scored 93% for child occupant protection, which Euro NCAP described as the highest score achieved by a passenger car in the preceding nine years.

The result is particularly impressive because the vehicle was assessed under the organization’s demanding contemporary testing protocols.

Child protection testing looks beyond the strength of the passenger compartment. Euro NCAP assesses how child-sized crash-test dummies are protected in frontal and side impacts, as well as how effectively the vehicle accommodates child restraints. It also checks the clarity of information for installing child seats and the availability of suitable restraint positions.

The Polestar 3’s score formed part of a five-star safety rating, meaning its performance was strong across the broader assessment program, not just in the child category. Its electric SUV layout also gives it a family-focused role, with a five-seat cabin rather than a third row that introduces additional seating and restraint considerations.

Still, a 93% score does not mean every possible child-seat arrangement is suitable or that injuries are impossible in a severe crash.

Parents should consult the owner’s manual and child-seat compatibility information, install restraints according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and select a seat appropriate for the child’s height and weight.

The result is tied to the European-market vehicle tested in 2025. U.S. buyers should not assume the same rating applies to every specification sold in America, where equipment and certification requirements can differ.

2. Volvo EX90: 93% Child Occupant Protection

Volvo has long built its brand around occupant safety, and the EX90 delivered a strong result in Euro NCAP’s 2025 testing. The large electric SUV achieved 93% for child occupant protection and earned a five-star rating.

Its other published category scores were 92% for adult occupant protection and 86% for safety assist, illustrating that the child score was part of a broadly strong safety assessment.

The EX90 is designed as a family-oriented SUV with three rows of seating. That makes child-restraint compatibility and clear seating-position information especially relevant to parents choosing between a large SUV and a smaller vehicle.

However, a high child-protection score should not be interpreted as proof that every seating position accommodates every child seat. Owners must check the manual and restraint compatibility guidance for their exact vehicle.

Euro NCAP’s child occupant category combines crash-test performance with assessments related to child restraints. The score therefore reflects more than a single impact result. A vehicle needs to protect child dummies effectively in the prescribed tests and provide appropriate support for the installation and use of child seats.

Continue reading.

Luxury cars are expected to deliver refined cabins, strong performance, and advanced technology, but premium badges do not guarantee a five-star Euro NCAP safety rating. Several upscale models have received four stars after testing revealed weaknesses in areas such as crash avoidance, pedestrian protection, or standard safety equipment.

The results do not automatically make these cars unsafe, and ratings from different years cannot be compared without considering changes in testing standards.

This list focuses on documented Euro NCAP assessments of premium vehicles, explaining the specific reasons each fell short of the maximum rating.

1. BMW i4: Four Stars in 2022

The BMW i4 combines electric performance with the comfort and refinement expected from a premium sedan. However, its 2022 Euro NCAP assessment resulted in four stars, with scores of 87% for adult occupant protection, 87% for child occupant protection, 71% for vulnerable road users, and 64% for safety assist.

These results show that strong crash protection alone was not enough to secure the maximum rating.

There were plenty of positives in the crash tests. The passenger compartment remained stable during the frontal offset impact, and protection for the driver’s and front passenger’s knees and femurs was good.

Side-barrier and side-pole testing also demonstrated good protection across critical body areas. The i4 therefore performed well in several important occupant-protection scenarios.

The weaker results appeared in the car’s interaction with vulnerable road users and its active safety performance. Euro NCAP identified less consistent protection around the front of the vehicle, including poor pelvis protection in pedestrian-impact testing.

Its autonomous emergency braking system also produced mixed results in scenarios involving pedestrians and cyclists. The 64% safety-assist score reflected shortcomings in the tested assistance systems.

For prospective buyers, this distinction matters. Four stars does not mean the i4 offers poor crash protection. It means the tested vehicle did not achieve the necessary performance across every assessment category to earn five stars.

The rating applies to the European-market i4 variants covered by the 2022 assessment. U.S.-market equipment and later model updates may differ, so American buyers should not treat this result as a direct rating of every i4 sold in the United States.

2. BMW 2 Series Coupé: Four Stars in 2022

A compact luxury coupe can deliver a rewarding driving experience while still falling short of the highest safety rating. The BMW 2 Series Coupé received four stars in Euro NCAP’s 2022 assessment.

The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test, and dummy readings indicated good protection for the driver’s and passenger’s knees and femurs. Side-barrier testing also earned maximum points.

The four-star result was not simply a reflection of weak protection for people inside the car. In the full-width frontal test, critical body areas received good or adequate protection for the driver and rear passenger.

The more severe side-pole test also produced good or adequate results for critical areas. Those findings demonstrate that the coupe performed strongly in several major impact scenarios.

One issue highlighted by Euro NCAP was the car’s potential to act as an aggressive impact partner in a frontal collision. This assessment considers how a vehicle’s front structure interacts with another car, not just how well it protects its own occupants.

Continue reading.

A vehicle that costs less to insure is not necessarily the one with the cheapest repairs. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) compares collision insurance losses using claim frequency and claim severity, with 100 representing the average for all passenger vehicles.

In its study of 2020 to 2022 models, the Toyota Tundra Double Cab Long Bed recorded an index of just 48, while the Jeep Wrangler two-door scored 53. These results measure relative insurance losses, not crash-test performance.

They can help buyers compare potential insurance costs, provided the model year and configuration match the data.

1. Toyota Tundra Double Cab Long Bed

The Toyota Tundra Double Cab Long Bed recorded the lowest collision loss index in HLDI’s 2020 to 2022 model-year study. Its score of 48 means its standardized collision losses were approximately 52% below the all-vehicle benchmark.

The report recorded 1,347 insured vehicle years of exposure for this particular configuration, so the result applies specifically to the long-bed double cab rather than every Tundra pickup.

The most notable finding is the Tundra’s claim severity index of 58, the lowest in the report’s collision-severity comparison. This indicates that the average collision claim payment was substantially below the benchmark after HLDI’s adjustments. Its low collision loss result therefore reflects not only claim frequency but also the relatively low cost of claims.

Why might a pickup produce relatively low collision losses? Repair costs and claim patterns depend on the vehicle’s design, the type of damage sustained, and the circumstances in which owners use it.

HLDI does not establish that one particular engineering feature caused the Tundra’s result. Its statistical method adjusts for factors such as driver age, location, model year, deductible, and other characteristics to make vehicle comparisons more meaningful.

For shoppers, this is a useful insurance-cost signal, not a guarantee of a low premium. Insurers price policies using individual factors such as driving record, location, coverage limits, and deductible. The Tundra’s index also says nothing by itself about crash-test performance or the safety of other road users.

Before buying, compare quotes for the exact truck configuration and model year. A different cab, bed length, drivetrain, or newer redesign may have a different insurance-loss profile.

2. Jeep Wrangler Two-Door 4WD

The Jeep Wrangler two-door 4WD recorded a collision loss index of 53, placing it second in HLDI’s list of vehicles with the lowest collision losses for 2020 to 2022 models. Its reported exposure was 97,759 insured vehicle years, giving this result a much larger database than the Tundra’s specific long-bed configuration.

The Wrangler’s profile reveals why looking at the total index alone can be misleading. Its claim frequency index was 42, meaning collision claims occurred at around 42% of the benchmark rate.

Yet its claim severity index was 128, indicating that the average payment per claim was 28% higher than the benchmark. In plain English, claims were relatively uncommon, but when a claim occurred, the bill tended to be larger.

That contrast is especially relevant to buyers comparing insurance costs. The Wrangler’s removable roof and doors, distinctive body design, and off-road-oriented construction may influence how it is used and repaired, but HLDI’s figures do not prove that any one feature caused its low claim frequency or higher claim severity.

Continue reading.

A car’s purchase price does not tell the whole story about the cost of owning it. Insurance losses can reveal how frequently vehicles are involved in collision claims and how expensive those claims become.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) compares insured vehicles using loss measures that help insurers understand differences between models.

In this list, the Chevrolet Camaro has a collision loss index of 184, while the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 is notable for its claim frequency of 198, despite having a much lower severity index of 85. These figures reflect insurance loss patterns rather than crashworthiness alone.

1. Chevrolet Camaro

The Chevrolet Camaro tops HLDI’s list of vehicles priced below $30,000 with the highest relative collision losses in its 2020 to 2022 model-year analysis.

Its collision loss index was 184, indicating that estimated collision losses per insured vehicle year were 84% higher than the all-vehicle average. With 100 serving as the benchmark, an index of 184 represents a relative measure of losses, not a dollar amount.

The Camaro’s profile differs from a car that generates unusually frequent claims. Its claim frequency index was 160, or 60% above average, while its claim severity index was 115, or 15% above average.

The data suggest that collision claims occurred more frequently than the benchmark and that the average payout per claim was also moderately higher. HLDI calculates collision losses using these two factors while adjusting for variables such as driver demographics, location, model year, and deductible.

Why might this matter to an owner? A vehicle’s insurance costs reflect more than its sticker price. Repair costs, crash frequency, and the kinds of drivers who own a particular model can all influence collision losses. Sports cars may also have bodywork, lighting, and other components that are expensive to repair after an impact.

The figures apply to the studied model years, not automatically to every Camaro generation or a future vehicle. Buyers should request insurance quotes using the exact year and trim before purchasing.

The Camaro’s index does not mean every owner will pay 84% more for coverage, but it does identify a model with substantially higher historical collision losses than the study average.

2. Mitsubishi Mirage G4

The Mitsubishi Mirage G4 shows a striking similarity to the Camaro, with a collision loss index of 182 compared with the Camaro’s 184.

Yet the reasons behind that result were very different. HLDI recorded a claim frequency index of 198 for the Mirage G4, meaning its collision claims occurred at nearly twice the all-vehicle benchmark. Its claim severity index, meanwhile, was only 85, or 15% below average.

This combination makes the G4 particularly noteworthy. The data suggest that collision claims occur frequently, but the average payout per claim is lower than the benchmark. This does not necessarily mean the car is expensive to repair after every crash. Instead, the high claim frequency contributes to its elevated collision loss index, even though the typical claim payment remains below the benchmark.

The distinction matters when comparing affordable vehicles. A lower purchase price and inexpensive replacement parts do not necessarily translate into low insurance losses. Claim frequency can be influenced by usage, driver population, location, and crash circumstances, even after HLDI standardizes for several variables.

Continue reading.

A vehicle’s safety record involves more than crash-test scores, airbags, and driver-assistance technology. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s July 2026 analysis compared driver death rates using crash data from 2021 through 2024.

Six configurations recorded zero estimated driver deaths per million registered vehicle years, while the fleet average was 37. The remaining vehicles in this ranking reported rates between four and seven.

These results concern 2023 models and equivalent earlier versions, not necessarily today’s redesigned vehicles. They measure deaths among drivers of the listed vehicles, not every person involved in a crash.

IIHS adjusts the rates for driver age and gender, but the figures still reflect real-world conditions and statistical uncertainty.

A zero estimate does not mean a vehicle is incapable of being involved in a fatal crash. Treat the results as one useful safety indicator, alongside model-year crash tests, recalls, equipment, maintenance, and responsible driving.

1. Audi Q7 4WD

Driver death rate: 0 per million registered vehicle years

The Audi Q7 4WD recorded a zero estimated driver death rate in the July 2026 IIHS analysis. The applicable model-year span was 2020 through 2023, combining versions considered sufficiently equivalent for the study.

The large luxury SUV class averaged 10 deaths per million registered vehicle years, putting the Q7’s reported result below that benchmark.

The statistic needs careful interpretation. Its 95% confidence interval extended from zero to 20 deaths per million registered vehicle years, showing that uncertainty remains even when the estimated rate is zero. It does not prove that no Q7 driver died in any crash or that the vehicle cannot be involved in a fatal collision.

The Q7 offers a substantial body structure, available all-wheel drive, and driver-assistance technology that varies by trim and year. Four-wheel drive can help deliver power on slippery surfaces, but it does not guarantee shorter stopping distances.

2. BMW X7 4WD

Driver death rate: 0 per million registered vehicle years

The BMW X7 4WD likewise had an estimated rate of zero driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years. The study covered model years 2020 to 2023 and reported a 95% confidence interval ranging from zero to 17. While the estimated rate was zero, the confidence interval highlights that the actual level of risk remains uncertain and cannot be measured with absolute precision.

As BMW’s full-size luxury SUV, the X7 combines a large passenger compartment with modern restraint and crash-avoidance systems, depending on configuration.

Its size may offer advantages to occupants in some collisions, but mass can also increase consequences for people in smaller vehicles. IIHS separately tracks deaths among drivers of other vehicles involved in crashes, providing context beyond the X7 driver’s outcome.

The study’s result applies to the four-wheel-drive configuration and should not automatically be assigned to two-wheel-drive versions, redesigned models, or other BMW SUVs. The analysis adjusts for driver age and gender but cannot remove every difference in use or crash circumstances.

3. Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD

Driver death rate: 0 per million registered vehicle years

The Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD recorded zero estimated driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The study’s applicable model-year span was 2022 to 2023, with a 95% confidence interval from zero to 16. It is one of six configurations in the analysis with a zero estimate.

Continue reading.

America’s public electric-vehicle charging network is continuing to grow even as demand for new electric cars weakens. Charging companies are installing thousands of additional plugs, expanding high-speed charging capacity and improving station locations to make public charging more practical for drivers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, more than 12,000 public charging plugs were added by early October 2026, putting the industry on track to install nearly as many plugs this year as it did during the record-setting year of 2025.

The expansion reveals a contrast in the U.S. automotive market. Although electric vehicle sales have declined significantly, investment in the infrastructure required to support EV adoption has continued.

Charging Infrastructure Keeps Growing as EV Sales Fall

The slowdown in electric-car sales has not brought the expansion of public charging infrastructure to a halt. Reuters reported on October 8 that U.S. EV sales were down 30.7% year to date in 2026, with fully electric vehicles accounting for about 6% of total auto sales, compared with 8.5% a year earlier.

The end of the federal $7,500 EV tax credit and a wider shift in policy have contributed to a more difficult environment for automakers and potential buyers.

Charging providers, however, are planning around a longer-term market rather than only the number of new EVs sold in a single quarter. More than 250,000 public charging ports were available nationwide by the second quarter of 2026, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

That figure includes different types of public charging equipment, from slower units suited to longer parking periods to powerful DC fast chargers used during road trips.

The continued buildout also reflects the needs of existing EV owners. The vehicles already on U.S. roads will continue to require charging even when new-car sales fluctuate.

A larger used-EV market is another potential source of demand, as lower purchase prices bring electric cars within reach of more households. Reuters reported that U.S. used-EV sales rose 19% in 2026, providing another sign that the market is not moving in lockstep with new-vehicle sales.

Infrastructure companies are also trying to address problems that have discouraged some drivers from switching to electric vehicles. These include stations that are difficult to find, chargers that are out of service, slow charging speeds, and inconsistent experiences between networks.

More plugs alone will not solve every problem, but a combination of improved reliability, better locations, and higher charging power could make public charging easier to use.

Faster Chargers and Better Locations Could Improve the Driving Experience

The expansion is not just about adding more charging points. Providers are also investing in faster equipment and improving how stations are designed and positioned.

Higher-powered DC fast chargers can replenish a compatible vehicle’s battery more quickly, although actual charging speeds depend on the car’s maximum charging rate, battery temperature, battery charge level, and the power available at the station.

The U.S. charging market has become more capable of supporting longer journeys. Tesla remains a major force, with more than 40,000 fast-charging plugs across the country, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Continue reading.