1999 Honda Accord Dx Sedan 4-door 2.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Carmakers ask Trump to revisit fuel efficiency rules

Car companies operating in the US are required to meet stringent fuel efficiency standards (a fleet average of 54.5MPG) through 2025, but they're hoping to loosen things now that President Trump is in town. Leaders from Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota and VW have sent a letter to Trump asking him to rethink the Obama administration's choice to lock in efficiency guidelines for the next several years. The car makers want to revisit the midterm review for the 2025 commitment in hopes of loosening the demands. They claim that the tougher requirements raise costs, don't match public buying habits and will supposedly put "as many a million" jobs up in the air. The Trump administration hasn't specifically responded to the letter, although Environmental Protection Agency nominee Scott Pruitt had said he would return to the Obama-era decision. The automakers' argument doesn't entirely hold up. While the EPA did estimate that the US would fall short of efficiency goals due to a shift toward SUVs and trucks, the job claims are questionable. Why would making more fuel efficient vehicles necessarily cost jobs instead of pushing companies to do better? As it is, even a successful attempt to loosen guidelines may only have a limited effect. All of the brands mentioned here are pushing for greater mainstream adoption of electric vehicles within the next few years -- they may meet the Obama administration's expectations just by shifting more drivers away from gas power. This article by Jon Fingas originally appeared on Engadget, your guide to this connected life. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images Government/Legal Green Chrysler Fiat GM Honda Hyundai Nissan Toyota Volkswagen Fuel Efficiency CAFE standards Trump

Acura already planning NSX Type R?

Acura just took the wraps off the production version of its long-awaited new NSX, but rumors are already circulating of an even hotter version to follow. Meeting up at the Detroit Auto Show this week, Auto Express asked the NSX's chief engineer Ted Klaus about the prospect of a Type R version in the future, to which he reportedly answered: "I think everyone who loves cars wants to see a version that we say is pure red. The NSX has always been silver first, moving towards red later. Someone asked me, 'when will you be satisfied?' Probably never. What you do today, you can improve on tomorrow." That doesn't mean that tomorrow will actually come tomorrow, but it does speak to a spirit of improvement on the NSX team that could stand to keep the American-made Japanese supercar on the knife's edge and out in front of the competition, which Klaus identified as including the Ferrari 458, Audi R8 V10 and Porsche 911 Turbo. The previous model bred the NSX-R two years after its release (in the Japanese domestic market anyway), benefiting from a 265-pound weight reduction, a stiffer suspension, and though never officially confirmed, a long-suspected bump in output. Related Video:

Honda recalling 25k Odyssey minivans over side curtain airbags

Honda's refreshed 2014 Odyssey (now with 100-percent more vacuum power!) launched last year, but is now being called back for issues related to the side curtain airbags. According to Honda, 24,889 Odyssey minivans are affected by an issue that may cause the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) warning light to illuminate or, even worse, cause the side airbags to not deploy in a crash.
What went wrong, exactly? We'll let Honda explain:
During assembly of the electrical coupler for the side curtain airbag on the passenger's side of the vehicle, it is possible that the shorting terminal, which is used to prevent deployment of the airbag before it is assembled into the vehicle, may have been damaged. A damaged shorting terminal may illuminate the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) indicator as well as prevent the side curtain airbag from deploying during a crash, increasing the risk of injury.