2014 Nissan Maxima Sv on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Nissan Murano and Juke priced, Color Studio to breed bad ideas

Nissan has released basic pricing information on its upcoming Murano, as well as detailed pricing on the refreshed Juke crossover at the 2014 LA Auto Show. The Japanese company also announced a new "color studio" for the Juke, which just reeks of bad ideas. First, let's talk money. The flashy, redesigned Murano crossover will kick off at $29,650, not including an $885 destination charge. While the new CUV will begin arriving in dealers on December 5, Nissan opted out of providing more detailed pricing data, including information about trim levels and other optional extras. It did no such thing with the Juke, though. The freshened 2015 model starts at $20,250 for a base Juke S, and climbs from there. The SV trim adds $1,050 to the price while the SL starts at $25,240. All-wheel drive adds $1,850 to the S and SV models and $1,700 to SL. If you're the sporting sort, the Juke Nismo starts at $24,830 while the Nismo RS rings up at $28,020. Adding an Xtronic continuously variable transmission and all-wheel-drive to the Nismo models increases the price by $2,400 and $2,000, respectively. And now, the Nissan Color Studio. We'll admit, there are some among the Autoblog staff that question this new feature, which gives customers an extreme degree of control when it comes to the styling of their Juke. For a price, Nissan will allow customers to choose individual colors for ten different parts of the Juke, including the rear spoiler, mirror caps, headlight surrounds, door sills and the wheels. While a fashionable mind might be able to create something rather cool, the potential for abuse here is extremely high. Check out the inset image to see what we mean. Scroll down for Nissan's announcement on Juke and Murano pricing, as well as details on the color studio.

Nissan working on something radical for Le Mans

With Porsche joining Audi and Toyota at the front of the LMP1 grid at Le Mans next year, Nissan is the next to be throwing its hat (and considerable R&D budget) into the proverbial ring. But only if it's allowed to do something radically different, according to the latest report in Car magazine.
Just what that means remains to be seen, but Nissan is reportedly in active discussions with the ACO (the body that governs the race) to see how far it can stretch the regulations. The ACO has taken an intriguingly different approach to equalizing performance, mandating the maximum amount of energy that can be used per lap instead of telling teams what kind of engines they can use. That's how Porsche is entering with a four-cylinder engine, Toyota with a V8 and Audi with a diesel six. But when it comes to the shape of the car itself, the rules are considerably more restrictive.
Unfortunately the rules would prohibit Nissan fielding the ZEOD RC (with its narrow front track) in the LMP1 class, relegating it instead to the Garage 56 slot for experimental racers (which the DeltaWing filled before). And the realities of endurance racing would effectively prohibit anyone from fielding an all-electric racer. Within those confines, though, Nissan is eager to find enough wiggle room to make something both visually and technically different from other LMPs. And if the ACO won't let it do so at Le Mans, it could turn to another race or series (like the Nürburgring 24) that would.

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.