2019 Nissan Rogue Sv Sport Utility 4d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.

FCA-Renault revival may hinge on willingness to cut Nissan stake

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Renault are looking for ways to resuscitate their collapsed merger plan and secure the approval of the French carmaker's alliance partner Nissan, according to several sources close to the companies. Nissan is poised to urge Renault to significantly reduce its 43.4% stake in the Japanese company in return for supporting a FCA-Renault tie-up, two people with knowledge of its thinking also told Reuters. It is still far from clear whether any concerted effort to revive the complex and politically fraught deal can succeed. FCA Chairman John Elkann abruptly withdrew his $35 billion merger offer in the early hours of June 6 after the French government, Renault's biggest shareholder, blocked a vote by its board and demanded more time to win Nissan's backing. Nissan representatives had said they would abstain. The failure, which FCA and Renault blamed squarely on the French government, deprived both companies of an opportunity to create the world's third-biggest carmaker with 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) in promised annual synergies. It also shone a harsh light on Renault's relations with Nissan, which have gone from frayed to fried since the November arrest of former alliance Chairman Carlos Ghosn, now awaiting trial in Japan on financial misconduct charges he denies. REVIVAL TALKS Italian-American FCA — whose brand stable encompasses Fiat runabouts, Jeep SUVs, RAM pickups, Alfa Romeo luxury cars and Maserati sports cars — has so far turned a deaf ear to suggestions by French officials that its merger proposal could be revisited. But since the breakdown, Elkann and his French counterpart Jean-Dominique Senard have had talks about reviving the plan that left the Renault chairman and his Chief Executive Thierry Bollore upbeat about that prospect, three alliance sources said. Renault and a spokesman for FCA declined to comment. One of Elkann's senior advisors on the Renault merger bid, Toby Myerson, was expected at Nissan headquarters in Yokohama on Monday for exploratory discussions with top management, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Nissan CEO Hiroto Saikawa is likely to attend. Myerson did not respond to a message from Reuters seeking comment. The meeting comes amid mounting strains that may preclude compromise, after Senard warned Saikawa that Renault was prepared to block key Nissan governance reforms in a dispute over board committees.