2017 Nissan Maxima Sr Sedan 4d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mitsubishi cheated on Japanese fuel economy test since 1991

Mitsubishi now says that its cheating on Japanese fuel economy tests stretches as far back as 1991. The automaker has hired an independent panel of investigators to get to the bottom of what happened, and the company will give them three months to prepare a report about the deception. Mitsubishi's cheat involves how the company calculated driving resistance to determine fuel economy. In 1991, Japan's Road Transport Vehicle Act established a coasting test to establish the driving resistance, but Mitsubishi's engineers used their own "high-speed coasting test," according to its statement. In 2007, the company decided to only use the country's mandated evaluation, but the employees kept utilizing the high-speed test in the field. In the most recent scandal, workers selected low values for driving resistance from the results, which made the fuel economy look better. Mitsubishi's presented these details in a report to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism. "We are currently investigating the reasoning behind each of the decisions," the company said in a statement. It also hired three former prosecutors to figure out why this happened for so long. At this time, Mitsubishi only confirms the incorrect figures for some of the company's minicars, but this investigation could discover more transgressions. This fiasco started when Nissan discovered fuel economy discrepancies in some of its Mitsubishi-made tiny kei-class cars in Japan. Mitsubishi came clean and admitted the problem affected about 625,000 vehicles in the country. Japanese media have alleged more vehicles have incorrect mileage, including the Outlander. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the US has also requested data from the Japanese automaker to confirm similar deceptions didn't happen for vehicles here. Related Video: Regarding the Report to MLIT Concerning Improper Conduct in Fuel Consumption Testing of Vehicles Manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Tokyo, April 26, 2016 The following is a summary of the report submitted by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) today, pursuant to instructions received from MLIT on April 20 to investigate improper conduct in fuel consumption testing of vehicles manufactured by MMC. Report Summary 1.

2013 Nissan Juke Nismo

Scratching All The Right Itches
Say what you will about the unconventional aesthetics that Nissan employed on the company's Juke. I love the thing. The universe has no shortage of ambiguously styled CUVs, and while I can't exactly say I would have turned to the amphibian world for design inspiration had it been me with the charcoal in my hand, I can certainly appreciate the fact that the Juke isn't just another box-on-box design.
And then there's that engine. The turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder under the hood is one of the best powerplants in the company's toy box, offering plenty of low-range torque and comical levels of thrust. Hell, it even makes the optional continuously variable transmission tolerable. Praise be to the deities of forced induction. But something has always been missing from the mix. From the first moment I got my hands on the Juke, I couldn't help but think how much better the machine would be if Nissan ditched an inch or two of ground clearance and sharpened up its suspension. Think more "hot hatch" and less "Kermit goes to Kroger."

Is 120 miles just about perfect for EV range?

When it comes to battery-electric vehicles, our friend Brad Berman over at Plug In Cars says 40 miles makes all the difference in the world. That's the approximate difference in single-charge range between the battery-electric version of the Toyota RAV4 and the Nissan Leaf. It's also the difference between the appearance or disappearance of range anxiety. The 50-percent battery increase has zapped any lingering range anxiety, Berman writes. The RAV4 EV possesses a 40-kilowatt-hour pack, compared to the 24-kWh pack in the Leaf. After factoring in differences in size, weight and other issues, that means the compact SUV gets about 120 miles on a single charge in realistic driving conditions, compared to about 80 miles in the Leaf. "The 50 percent increase in battery size from Leaf to RAV has zapped any lingering range anxiety," Berman writes. His observations further feed the notion that drivers need substantial backup juice in order to feel comfortable driving EVs. Late last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), along with the Consumers Union estimated that about 42 percent of US households could drive plug-in vehicles with "little or no change" in their driving habits, and that almost 70 percent of US commuters drive fewer than 60 miles per weekday. That would imply that a substantial swath of the country should be comfortable using a car like the Leaf as their daily driver - with first-quarter Leaf sales jumping 46 percent from a year before, more Americans certainly are. Still, the implication here is that EV sales will continue to be on the margins until an automaker steps up battery capabilities to 120 or so miles while keeping the price in the $30,000 range. Think that's a reasonable goal to shoot for?