2013 - Ford Fusion on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Motorweek goes retro with '80s hot hatch shootout

Motorweek's decades of history on television make it the perfect medium to look back into the automotive past and see how things are different now. It recently added old road test videos to its YouTube channel of the Acura NSX and Toyota Supra, as well as the Ferrari F40. For one of its newest flashback clips, Motorweek has exhumed an affordable five-car challenge of 1986's premiere hot hatches.
By today's standards, this is an eclectic field that features fondly remembered classics like the Volkswagen GTI 16-valve and Acura Integra. However, it also throws in some nearly forgotten contenders like the Dodge Colt Turbo and Ford Escort GT. The angular Toyota Corolla FX16 GT-S rounds out the group.
It's fascinating to watch Motorweek run the quintet through the slalom, down the drag strip and on various roads. What's most striking in this clip is the difference in the definition of a performance car between then and now. With its 16-valve, 1.8-liter four-cylinder, the GTI is the burliest of the contenders with 123 horsepower, but it still takes 8.8 seconds to reach 60 miles per hour. By today's standards, that would make it a plain-jane economy car, and not even a particularly quick one.

The next-generation wearable will be your car

This year's CES has had a heavy emphasis on the class of device known as the "wearable" – think about the Apple Watch, or Fitbit, if that's helpful. These devices usually piggyback off of a smartphone's hardware or some other data connection and utilize various onboard sensors and feedback devices to interact with the wearer. In the case of the Fitbit, it's health tracking through sensors that monitor your pulse and movement; for the Apple Watch and similar devices, it's all that and some more. Manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality. As evidenced by Volvo's newly announced tie-up with the Microsoft Band 2 fitness tracking wearable, car manufacturers are starting to explore how wearable devices will help drivers. The On Call app brings voice commands, spoken into the Band 2, into the mix. It'll allow you to pass an address from your smartphone's agenda right to your Volvo's nav system, or to preheat your car. Eventually, Volvo would like your car to learn things about your routines, and communicate back to you – or even, improvise to help you wake up earlier to avoid that traffic that might make you late. Do you need to buy a device, like the $249 Band 2, and always wear it to have these sorts of interactions with your car? Despite the emphasis on wearables, CES 2016 has also given us a glimmer of a vehicle future that cuts out the wearable middleman entirely. Take Audi's new Fit Driver project. The goal is to reduce driver stress levels, prevent driver fatigue, and provide a relaxing interior environment by adjusting cabin elements like seat massage, climate control, and even the interior lighting. While it focuses on a wearable device to monitor heart rate and skin temperature, the Audi itself will use on-board sensors to examine driving style and breathing rate as well as external conditions – the weather, traffic, that sort of thing. Could the seats measure skin temperature? Could the seatbelt measure heart rate? Seems like Audi might not need the wearable at all – the car's already doing most of the work. Whether there's a device on a driver's wrist or not, manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality.

The biggest gas-guzzlers of 2024: 'The Meanest List' is the opposite of greenest cars

In some circles — especially some automotive circles — bigger is better. This explains the Hummer, for example. In its so-called “Meanest List” of a dozen models, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) makes no apologies for berating “the worst-performing mass market automobiles” sold in 2024 in the U.S. The most diminutive car on the list is a Chevy Corvette Z06. At the top of this particular heap is the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, a gas-powered SUV that the environmental agency says was “the worst-performing vehicle of the more than 1,200 models assessed by Greener Cars and has an annual fuel cost over $4,000.” Not to mention its MSRP of around $184,000. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 Gas 20 $184,000 $4,242 2 Ram 1500 TRX 4x4 Gas 22 $98,335 $3,819 3 Ford F150 Raptor R Gas 24 $79,975 $3,777 4 Cadillac Escalade V Gas 26 $152,295 $3,388 5 Dodge Durango SRT Gas 26 $74,995 $3,332 6 Jeep Wrangler 4dr 4X4 Gas 27 $35,895 $3,260 7 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 4x4 Gas 28 $91,945 $3,058 8 Mercedes-Benz G550 Gas 28 $143,000 $3,186 9 GMC Hummer EV SUV EV 29 $98,845 $1,746 10 GMC Sierra Gas 29 $37,700 $3,069 11 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Gas 30 $114,395 $3,169 12 Mercedes-Benz Maybach S680 Gas 30 $234,300 $3,031 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In terms of numbers, the dirty dozen of the meanest includes seven SUVs and three trucks. Lonely at the middle of the list is the sole electric, the GMC Hummer EV, which weighs in at 9,000 pounds. The council notes that “though EVs have lower emissions than similarly sized gasoline models, the Hummer demonstrates that size and efficiency, not just fuel source, are important factors in a carÂ’s environmental impact.” ItÂ’s also worth reminding prospective buyers that the average fuel cost of a vehicle on the “Greenest List” eats up only a fifth of the fuel cost of a vehicle on the Meanest List, “showing that greener options can also be more affordable.” The ACEEE also put out a "Greener List" of efficient gasoline and hybrid cars that don't require plugging in.  By the Numbers Green Cadillac Chevrolet Dodge Ford GMC Hummer Jeep Maybach Mercedes-Benz RAM Emissions Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Truck SUV Electric Hybrid