2004 Toyota Tacoma Pre Runner Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 3.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?

Toyota's Bob Carter says far fewer stations needed in shift from gas to hydrogen

Toyota's Bob Carter has been talking about green cars for years, but it's only been recently that his comments have really caught widespread attention thanks to his disparaging remarks about electric vehicle supporters like Elon Musk and Carlos Ghosn and optimism about hydrogen. Speaking at the opening of the Chicago Auto Show this morning, Carter said that Toyota has claimed the "pole position on CAFE," thanks to its deep hybrid bench. The company's green car cred will continue to grow because of its upcoming hydrogen fuel cell car, due out next year. Carter is relentlessly optimistic: "I truly believe fuel cells will fundamentally change how we feel about transportation," he said. The reason, Carter said, is that a hydrogen infrastructure will be easier to install than people think. He referenced a study conducted by the University of California (which we've heard about before) that found that California would only need 68 hydrogen stations to refuel the roughly 10,000 H2 vehicles that Toyota hopes to sell in by 2016 or so. That's a lot more than the nine that exist today, but the state has already approved funding for 20 new stations by 2015 and then up to 100 by 2024. Then he said this: "If every vehicle in California ran on hydrogen, we could meet refueling logistics with only 15 percent of the nearly 10,000 gasoline stations currently operating in the state." "We could meet refueling logistics with only 15 percent of gasoline stations currently operating in CA" - Bob Carter This made us wonder: if the refueling time and range are roughly equivalent between hydrogen and gasoline – Toyota's hydrogen car is supposed to be able to go 300 miles on a five-minute fill-up - then why has the market decided that there should be 10,000 gas stations in California and why would 1,500 be sufficient for hydrogen? "If the locations are optimized," he said, "we don't need 10,000 stations." For example, at major intersections, instead of three gas stations, you'd really just need a single hydrogen one. "There are a lot of questions about the infrastructure, but it's coming. ... It's a hurdle that we've got to climb but it's not as steep as some may imagine." Toyota's Mike Michaels, the national manager, media and public affairs at Toyota Motor Sales, then stepped in to point out that there are gas stations closing and admitted that there might be too many gas stations in California.

Tier 1 suppliers call GM the worst OEM to work with

Among automakers with a big US presence, General Motors is the worst to work for, according to a new survey from Tier 1 automotive suppliers, conducted by Planning Perspectives, Inc.
The Detroit-based manufacturer, which has been under fire following the ignition switch recall and its accompanying scandal, finished behind six other automakers with big US manufacturing operations. Suppliers had issues with trust and communications, as well as intellectual property protection. GM was also the least likely to allow suppliers to raise their prices in the face of unexpected increases in material cost, all of which contributed to 55 percent of suppliers saying their relationship with GM was "poor to very poor."
GM's cross-town competitors didn't fare much better. Chrysler finished in fifth place, ahead of GM and behind Dearborn-based Ford, which was passed for third place this year by Nissan. Toyota took the top marks, while Honda captured second place.