$3k Service Just Done / Rare 6-speed Manual / Navigation / Non-smoker / No Rust! 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

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.