2010 Sr5 V6 - Leather 4.0l Auto Black on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Honda, Hyundai top car residual value / depreciation awards list

J.D. Power announced its 2022 U.S. ALG Residual Value awards Thursday, with Honda and Hyundai topping the charts at three models apiece in the industry-standard study. The term "residual" is an industry projection of how well a car will hold its resale value three years from the original purchase date – a key metric in calculating lease costs and projecting new-car depreciation.  Award winners included several enthusiast-friendly options, including the BMW 2 Series, Dodge Charger, Subaru WRX, Mercedes-AMG GT and Toyota Tacoma. Even the Ford Bronco was recognized, beating out the Jeep Wrangler in the Off-Road Utility segment. That may seem odd given the car's issue-plagued launch, but scarcity apparently trumps quality control issues over the longer term. Here's a scrolling complete list of winners broken down by segment: “Accurately forecasting residual values in the auto industry is a key factor in assessing an estimated $225 billion lease portfolio of vehicles in the United States,” said ALG VP Eric Lyman in the company's announcement. "The brands and vehicle models that rise to the top demonstrate that they score well across the award programÂ’s criteria, including manufacturersÂ’ superior design and quality." ALG looks at several factors to determine future value, which is especially tricky with new models. For 2022, 16 different brands were recognized across 29 segments. Behind Honda and Hyundai, Audi, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Subaru all managed to chart with two different models. Here's the rundown of those who won in more than one category: Honda Civic Honda Passport Honda Odyssey Hyundai Accent Hyundai Kona Hyundai Kona EV Audi A6 Allroad Audi Q3 Kia K5 Kia Telluride Land Rover Range Rover Velar Land Rover Discovery Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Mercedes-Benz Metris:  Subaru  WRX and  Subaru Forester Toyota Tacoma  Toyota Tundra "The award process consists of evaluating 284 models through analysis of used-vehicle performance, brand outlook and product competitiveness," the announcement said. "Eligibility for a brand award requires a manufacturer to have model entries in at least four different segments. To account for differences across trim levels, model averages are weighted based on percentage share relative to the entire model line."   Audi Honda Hyundai Kia Land Rover Mercedes-Benz Subaru Toyota

Toyota reaffirms commitment to body-on-frame SUVs

Toyota sold 121,055 Highlander CUVs in 2012, according to Automotive News. By comparison, it sold 78,457 examples of four different body-on-frame, truck-based SUVs (4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Sequoia and Land Cruiser). One could argue then, that the traditional SUVs aren't pulling their weight from a sales perspective. Yet that isn't stopping Toyota from reaffirming its commitment to a segment that has seen its former champions - Ford, General Motors and Chrysler - abandon it with alarming speed. Ford and GM still offer body-on frame utilities, but only in the very largest offerings, catering to seven or even eight passengers. Everything outside of the Expedition or Tahoe rides now on a unibody.
Toyota's decision to stick with the technology is good news if you're in the market for smaller SUVs that are still capable of heading well off the beaten path. Outside of the Jeep Wrangler, Grand Cherokee (a unibody) and perhaps Nissan Xterra, there's not much in terms of capable SUVs between $20,000 and $50,000. As the Toyota brand's US head, Bill Fay, says, "Clearly, the trend has shifted, but there is still an owner base that is interested in these vehicles."
We don't doubt Fay on that, but it may also be somewhat telling that Toyota's SUV lineup is aging, and we haven't seen or heard much about replacement models in the pipeline. Admittedly, the 4Runner (pictured) has been facelifted for 2014, but it's mostly cosmetic in nature. Despite Toyota's posturing, we still expect its body-on-frame lineup to thin in the coming years as sales dwindle and escalating fuel-economy standards make business cases even tougher. Here's hoping that Toyota manages to keep at least one rough-and-tumble SUV in its lineup in the coming years.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.