2004 Toyota Sequoia Limited Sport Utility 4-door 4.7l One Owner Only 69k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the 'Greenest' and 'Meanest' cars in 2015

As has become tradition, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has come up with a ranking of what it refers to as the "greenest" cars of 2015, and, by way of contrast, a list of the so-called "meanest" cars, so those who value eco-friendliness over all else can choose which vehicles they should or should not consider buying. As you may expect, electric cars make up the majority of the greenest cars on the list, but, perhaps surprisingly to many, the Tesla Model S didn't make the cut. It's worth noting, too, that where the electricity an owner uses to charge their electric vehicle has a big impact on its overall environmental impact. "A car that is charged using electricity generated from natural gas or renewables is going to have significantly less impact on the environment than one charged on a coal-heavy grid," says ACEEE lead vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan. The ACEEE's list for 2015 looks very different than it did in 2014. It's an interesting collection, though – and we're sure this goes without saying, really – we'd recommend doing a bit more research into each vehicle and how it might fit into your daily life before making any purchase decisions. Click here to see the ACEEE's list of the Greenest and Meanest vehicles sold in the United States in 2015. Green Bugatti Chevrolet Fiat GM GMC Mercedes-Benz Nissan RAM smart Toyota greenest greenest cars

Average transaction prices climb to a record $36,270 in January

The automotive sector made a hash of the numbers last month, a mess of pluses and minuses clogging the transaction-price charts according to Kelley Blue Book. The overall industry rose one percent, even though buyers bought fewer cars and light vehicles in January 2018 vs 2017 using the selling-day adjusted rate. Due to January transaction prices rising to $36,270, a record for January, the value of new vehicles sold climbed more than $1 billion compared to January 2017. KBB's transaction prices don't include customer incentives, which changes the complexion slightly; average incentive spending rose to just over ten percent. The average transaction price in December 2017 was $36,756, so January dropped a bit - nothing unexpected, with the month annually blamed for "January doldrums." More revealing is the fact that the average transaction price in January 2017 was $34,910. This year's plumped-up figure came courtesy of the continued shift to crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's read an automotive blog in the past 20 years. That category comprised nearly 70 percent of new vehicle sales for the month. Some manufacturers profited more than others, though. Fiat Chrysler managed 12.8 percent fewer sales in January compared year-on-year, but the company's vehicles sold for $1,300 more. The Ford brand suffered a 6.3-percent dip in sales, but brand transaction prices increased $2,000, while a Lincoln sold for $8,700 more on average. General Motors sold more cars and sold them for more money; overall GM transaction prices rose four percent, or $1,270, while a GMC traded hands for seven-percent more than in January 2017 and a Cadillac got $2,300 more on average. Of KBB's listed automakers, the Volkswagen Group got the most of out its customers, transaction prices rising at the German automaker by 5.6 percent to $42,243 in January 2018 compared to a year earlier. American Honda followed with a 4.3-percent increase to $28,991, GM in third at 4.1 percent to $40,313. Find your next car at Autoblog using our new and used car listings or the Car Finder tool. Broken out by segment, minivans rocked the table, transaction prices leaping by 7.9 percent to $35,380 compared to January a year earlier. Luxury cars boasted the next-highest rise, at 3.6 percent to $58,533.

Jim Lentz exposes more details behind Toyota's move to Texas

Toyota's North American CEO Jim Lentz has already given us a rough idea of what prompted the company's surprise move to the Dallas suburb of Plano, TX from its longstanding headquarters in Torrance, CA. A new story from The Los Angeles Times, though, delivers even more detail from Lentz on the reasoning for the move, what other cities were considered and why the company's current host city wasn't even in the running.
Of course, one of the more popular reasons being bandied about includes the $40 million Texas was set to give the company for the move, as well as the state's generous tax rates. According to Lentz, though, the reason Toyota chose Plano over a group of finalists made up of Atlanta, Charlotte and Denver, was far simpler than that - it was about consolidating its marketing, sales, engineering and production teams in a region that's closer to the company's seat of manufacturing in the south.
"It doesn't make sense to have oversight of manufacturing 2,000 miles away from where the cars were made," Lentz told The Times. "Geography is the reason not to have our headquarters in California."