Toyota 4runner Rwd 4dr V6 Limited Low Miles Suv Automatic Gasoline 4.0l V6 Cyl 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

2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross vs. small crossover SUVs: How they compare on paper

In the midst of the crossover SUV boom, each traditional size segment has become saturated. As a result, automakers are beginning to fill the gaps that separate classes, giving us some interesting in-between options. The all-new 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross jumps right into one of those in-between categories bookended by compact and subcompact crossovers. It's a niche that offers more space and feature content than the smallest vehicles, with an extra dose of style and a lower price than bigger ones. Because of the Eclipse Cross' in-between nature, though, there's not really an obvious direct competitor. As such, we've selected a diverse group of small crossovers that are similar to the Eclipse Cross in some but not all key areas: size, price, feature content, style and likely buyers. The 2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2018 Toyota C-HR and 2018 Nissan Rogue Sport each have elements in common, but are different enough to provide useful points of comparison. A chart of specifications and key standard features is shown below, followed by more in-depth analysis. And if you wish to compare these crossovers with others not listed, be sure to check out our comparison tools. Engines and Drivetrains One of the Eclipse Cross' biggest advantages in this segment will be its engine. Subcompact crossovers, including the other three we've chosen, are sluggish to say the least. This new Mitsubishi should be different as it packs a turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder that belts out a whopping 184 pound-feet of torque. We say whopping, because the C-HR, Crosstrek and Rogue Sport all have between 139 and 147 pound-feet. Horsepower is similarly unimpressive at just 152 horsepower - the same as the Crosstrek - but that torque should make passing and on-ramp runs much more satisfying. The appeal of crossovers for many people is the availability of all-wheel-drive, and this is where the Subaru gets an advantage. Like with all Subarus that aren't a BRZ, the Crosstrek has standard all-wheel drive. The Mitsubishi comes close, making all-wheel drive standard on every trim level except the very base ES trim level. On the Rogue Sport, all-wheel drive is an option on all trim levels. Depending on where you live, though, being able to have front drive on a high-trim crossover could be a plus because it will save some money and improve fuel economy. The C-HR loses this battle as it's only available with front-wheel drive.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.