2001 Chrysler Prowler Mulholland Edition Roadster on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Wards names its 2015 10 Best Interiors list

Wards Automotive has named the winners of its 10 Best Interior awards, covering a wide but affordable array of vehicles. Where last year's list contained two six-figure vehicles, including the $372,800 Rolls-Royce Wraith, this year's is, well, a whole lot more reasonable. The publication lists the Mercedes-Benz C400 at $65,000 (which seems off), making it the most expensive vehicle here. That said, we'd argue that the entire C-Class line deserves to make this year's list, owing to its varied and high-quality selection of materials. The other vehicle to break the $60,000 mark, meanwhile, is the $60,675 Ford F-150 King Ranch, which has 327,000 pounds of leather lining its interior. Only one other German car, the BMW i3, and one other pickup truck, the GMC Canyon, managed to make this year's list. Here's the full list of this year's winners: 2014 BMW i3 ($52,550) 2015 Chrysler 300C Platinum ($51,175) 2015 Ford F-150 King Ranch ($60,675) 2015 GMC Canyon SLT ($40,465) 2015 Honda Fit EX-L ($21,590) 2015 Jeep Renegade Limited ($33,205) 2015 Kia Sedona SXL ($43,295) 2016 Mazda6 Grand Touring ($33,395) 2015 Mercedes C400 ($65,000) 2015 Nissan Murano SL ($41,905) See what we mean about the mainstream vehicles? Not only is there a distinct lack of luxury brands, it's the price of some of the vehicles that surprise. The Honda Fit, Jeep Renegade and Mazda6 are very reasonably priced, especially when you compare Wards price with the starting price. The Renegade Limited starts at less than $25,000, the Mazda at less than $22K and the Fit at under $16,000. Head over to Wards for a more detailed explanation of why each vehicle won. Featured Gallery 2015 Ward's Automotive 10 Best Interiors View 10 Photos News Source: Wards Automotive BMW Chrysler Ford GMC Honda Jeep Kia Mazda Mercedes-Benz Nissan Truck Crossover Hatchback Sedan nissan murano gmc canyon Interior jeep renegade WardsAuto kia sedona wards 10 best interiors mercedes c400

Automakers not currently promoting EVs are probably doomed

Okay, let's be honest. The sky isn't falling – gas prices are. In fact, some experts say that prices at the pump will remain depressed for the next decade. Consumers have flocked to SUVs and CUVs, reversing the upward trend in US fuel economy seen over the last several years. A sudden push into electric vehicles seems ridiculous when gas guzzlers are selling so well. Make hay while the sun shines, right? A quick glance at some facts and figures provides evidence that the automakers currently doubling down on internal combustion probably have some rocky years ahead of them. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is a prime example of a volume manufacturer devoted to incremental gains for existing powertrains. Though FCA will kill off some of its more fuel-efficient models, part of its business plan involves replacing four- and five-speed transmissions with eight- and nine-speed units, yielding a fuel efficiency boost in the vicinity of ten percent over the next few years. Recent developments by battery startups have led some to suggest that efficiency and capacity could increase by over 100 percent in the same time. Research and development budgets paint a grim picture for old guard companies like Fiat Chrysler: In 2014, FCA spent about $1,026 per car sold on R&D, compared with about $24,783 per car sold for Tesla. To be fair, FCA can't be expected to match Tesla's efforts when its entry-level cars list for little more than half that much. But even more so than R&D, the area in which newcomers like Tesla have the industry licked is infrastructure. We often forget that our vehicles are mostly useless metal boxes without access to the network of fueling stations that keep them rolling. While EVs can always be plugged in at home, their proliferation depends on a similar network of charging stations that can allow for prolonged travel. Tesla already has 597 of its 480-volt Superchargers installed worldwide, and that figure will continue to rise. Porsche has also proposed a new 800-volt "Turbo Charging Station" to support the production version of its Mission E concept, and perhaps other VW Auto Group vehicles. As EVs grow in popularity, investment in these proprietary networks will pay off — who would buy a Chevy if the gas stations served only Ford owners? If anyone missed the importance of infrastructure, it's Toyota.

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question