1988 Suzuki Samurai on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha to make swappable motorcycle batteries

Just as electric cars are becoming ever more common, the alternative propulsion system is starting to make headway in the motorcycle sphere. Companies such as Harley-Davidson and Zero already have electric models on sale, but other established brands are preparing for the electric future. Among them are the four big Japanese bike builders (Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha) who have a plan to improve electric bike adoption, and make their bikes very appealing. The four companies created an organization back in April 2019 for this sort of purpose called the Swappable Battery Consortium for Electric Motorcycles. And the group has now announced that the manufacturers have agreed on the specifications for motorcycle batteries that can be interchanged among each company's motorcycles. So if you have a Suzuki, you can use a Honda battery, or vice versa. This idea presents quite a few interesting possibilities. The manufacturers could sell bikes with or without batteries, since you might already have a battery from your previous bike, or just another one you own, so you wouldn't have to shell out to buy an entirely new battery. If, for whatever reason, you needed a replacement battery, it should be easy to get one, since the same type would support bikes from a variety of manufacturers. The pipe dream of battery swapping stations might even be feasible because of the standardization and support. And having the batteries relatively easy to remove could be good for apartment dwellers, since they might be able to bring a battery inside to charge. The manufacturers haven't said exactly what the specifications are for these interchangeable batteries, nor when they'll be implemented. But we'll be eagerly awaiting more information in the future. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Junkyard Gem: 2003 Chevrolet Tracker

When General Motors created the Geo brand to sell vehicles designed and — in some cases — built by Japanese partners, the first four models were introduced for the 1989 model year: the Metro (Suzuki Cultus), Prizm (Toyota Sprinter), Spectrum (Isuzu Gemini) and Tracker (Suzuki Sidekick). Geo got the axe in 1997, with the Metro, Prizm and Tracker becoming Chevrolets. Of those, the Tracker survived the longest, with U.S.-market sales continuing into 2004. Here's an example of a very late Tracker, found in a North Carolina car graveyard recently. The 1989-1997 first-generation Trackers were based on the Suzuki Sidekick, while the 1998-2004 Trackers had the Suzuki Vitaras (not to be confused with the much grander Grand Vitaras) as their siblings. Production of these trucks for the South American market (as the Chevrolet Vitara) continued in Ecuador all the way through 2014. The Tracker name has also gone onto some versions of the Chevrolet Trax around the world. This one is a base four-door hard top/rear-wheel-drive model, which had an MSRP of $17,330. That's about $29,789 in 2024 dollars. You'll find one in every car. You'll see. The engine is a Suzuki 2.0-liter straight-four rated at 127 horsepower and 134 pound-feet. A five-speed manual was base equipment, but very few American vehicle shoppers wanted three pedals by the middle 2000s. This truck has the Aisin four-speed automatic. We like it loud. It appears that someone associated with this truck graduated from Julius L. Chambers High School last year. In the United States, the Tracker was replaced by the Saturn Vue. If Tracker can handle (unspecified Middle Eastern country), it can survive the jungle back home. Siempre contigo.

Autoblog Minute: VW Q3 financial woes, 2015 Tokyo Motor Show

Consumer Reports pulls its Tesla recommendation, the U.S. Copyright Office offers a ruling affecting car owners, VW gets hit hard with third-quarter losses, and lots of exciting news from Tokyo. Autoblog senior editor Greg Migliore reports on this edition of Autoblog Minute Weekly Recap. Show full video transcript text [00:00:00] Consumer Reports pulls its Tesla recommendation, the U.S. copyright office offers a ruling that affects car owners and gear heads, VW gets hit hard with third-quarter losses, and lots of exciting news from Tokyo. I'm senior editor Greg Migliore and this is your Autoblog Minute Weekly Recap. After a week away testing vehicles for Autoblog's Tech of the Year award, we're back in the office to recap the week in automotive news. [00:00:30] One of the things you might have missed was Consumer Reports pulling its recommendation of Tesla's Model S sedan. The blemish for Tesla comes after a tally of reviews from customer surveys. The most common problem areas for the Model S as cited by survey takers included: the drivetrain, power equipment, charging equipment, body and sunroof squeaks, rattles, and leaks. So lots of stuff. Though they could not ignore a score of "worse-than-average", Consumer Reports still [00:01:00] highlighted the fact that the Model S was "the best performing car" they've ever tested. Telsa CEO Elon Musk took to social media to defend his sedans saying: "Consumer Reports reliability survey includes a lot of early production cars. Already addressed in new cars." And, "Tesla gets top rating of any company in service. Most important, CR says 97% of owners expect their next car to be a Tesla (the acid test)." In Financial news, Volkswagen took a hit and reported an operating loss of [00:01:30] $3.84 billion. This is the first such loss for VW in 15 years. Toyota reclaimed the crown as the world's largest automaker as well. It's important that it's not all doom and gloom for VW though in Q3. Sales revenues were up and the company's automotive division boasts $30 billion dollars in liquid assets. It's a sizable war chest that will no doubt come in handy, as the company has yet to feel the full brunt of the diesel emissions scandal. Good news for gear heads. The US copyright office [00:02:00] ruled in favor of mechanics and car owners by granting an exception to existing copyright law. The law was originally meant to prevent software pirating and bootlegging of Hollywood movies.