First, make sure the prices describe the trucks you want

AT4 is a trim; in the United States, TRD Off-Road is a package offered on several Tundra grades. My Canadian Toyota tester’s closest U.S. equivalent is an SR5 CrewMax 4WD with the 5.5-foot bed and TRD Off-Road Package. That SR5 starts at $51,510, and the $2,125 package brings the base-plus-package sum to $53,635. GMC advertises the AT4 at $68,300, but that includes the standard Duramax diesel. The V8 and active exhaust add $1,895, bringing that combination to about $70,195 before additional equipment.

All figures are in U.S. dollars and exclude destination, taxes, and other equipment. Totals are calculated examples, rather than U.S. prices for my Canadian test vehicles.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The roughly $16,600 difference between the V8 GMC and SR5 Toyota therefore includes a substantial jump in cabin equipment. Moving to a Limited, Toyota adds leather, ventilated front seats, and larger displays. Its TRD package also costs more—$3,580—so the full step from SR5 TRD to Limited TRD is $7,805, not just the $6,350 separating their base prices. That narrows the illustrated GMC’s premium to about $8,800. My Sierra’s additional packages, sunroof, cover, and other options would widen it again. The Limited is a closer comfort comparison, although my firsthand Toyota impressions come from the simpler truck.

The GMC makes a stronger first impression inside

The Sierra’s lifted stance, red recovery hooks, and 20-inch wheels give it plenty of presence. The Tundra’s Mudbath paint and 18-inch TRD wheels suit its more straightforward specification. Open the doors, though, and the price difference becomes much clearer. GMC adds perforated leather and Kalahari accents, plus heated and ventilated front seats, a 13.4-inch touchscreen, and a 12.3-inch instrument display. The SR5-based Toyota has cloth, an eight-inch touchscreen, and a 4.2-inch information display between analog gauges. The off-road package hasn’t transformed the rest of its interior.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

I found Toyota’s presentation a bit simpler, for better or worse, though both trucks retain useful physical controls and wireless Apple CarPlay. The Sierra’s richer surroundings don’t automatically settle the comfort question, either: its front cushions felt firm on longer drives, while the Toyota’s seats remained supportive. This is where I would revisit the Limited. Its larger displays and better upholstery bring the Toyota much closer to what I expect at this price. Buyers should also check individual options: my GMC’s head-up display and rear camera mirror were add-on technology, and its sliding rear window was additional equipment.

A Limited TRD also moves to 20-inch wheels, so it changes more than the dashboard and upholstery. I would drive that configuration before assuming it reproduces everything I liked about the 18-inch-wheel test truck. An appealing spec sheet still needs to suit you from behind the wheel. Toyota supplies an especially good alternative to that little sliding pane. The CrewMax’s entire rear window lowers electrically, opening the cabin in a way the GMC cannot match. I’d miss it after getting used to it. Both trucks offer plenty of passenger space, with rear legroom measuring 43.4 inches in the Sierra and 41.6 in the Tundra. GMC’s extra room is another worthwhile advantage if the rear bench regularly carries adults, rather than jackets and shopping bags.

The V8 earns its appeal on the road

Toyota extracts more torque from a much smaller displacement. Its 479 lb-ft exceeds the GMC’s 460, although the delivery feels different. A hard acceleration request in the Tundra brought a pause for kickdown and boost before the shove arrived; the Sierra’s response felt more immediate. The GMC also delivered the soundtrack I wanted from a big pickup, helped by my truck’s optional exhaust. I chose the Sierra because I enjoyed driving it so much more, even though the Toyota could do the job for less.

The Toyota countered with a comfortable ride and light steering that made it feel manageable around town. Its coil-spring rear suspension handled imperfect pavement well. The Sierra felt composed through the Sea-to-Sky’s bends, but its size was harder to ignore in tight parking spaces. More engine didn’t translate into a meaningful difference in economy in these tests. I recorded about 15 U.S. mpg in the GMC and 14.7 in the Toyota, though they were driven on different routes and under different conditions. Neither result made the Tundra’s smaller engine an obvious financial consolation. Those impressions only apply to the engines driven. AT4 buyers can keep the standard diesel, while higher Tundra grades offer the 437-hp, 583-lb-ft i-FORCE MAX hybrid.

Similar ambitions, different useful hardware

Both trucks have credible equipment beneath the styling. The AT4 combines a two-inch lift, Rancho monotube shocks, skid plates, and an automatic locking rear differential. Toyota’s TRD package supplies Bilstein shocks, a selectable rear locker, terrain settings, and Crawl Control. GMC’s Autotrac transfer case also offers an Auto setting to adapt to changing traction conditions. Toyota’s part-time four-wheel drive requires the driver to select the appropriate range, and its rear locker operates in low range. The GMC’s automatic 4WD mode is a useful everyday distinction, separate from its automatically locking rear differential.

I used the Toyota’s off-road systems at Stave Lake in British Columbia, while the GMC tackled moderate terrain in Squamish Valley. Both handled their respective outings, but the different routes leave me without a fair basis for naming an ultimate trail winner. More specialized options exist when the trails demand them. The AT4X adds Multimatic dampers and front and rear electronic lockers; Toyota’s TRD Pro uses FOX shocks and hybrid power. Their prices reflect different suspension and traction hardware. Neither badge is necessary to get a rugged truck with a comfortable cabin.

Around the back, GMC’s MultiPro tailgate gives the AT4 something Toyota cannot duplicate: several opening arrangements, including a load stop and a step into the bed. On a tall, lifted pickup, easier access matters. The Sierra’s short box offers 62.9 cubic feet, and Toyota uses an aluminum-reinforced composite bed. Towing gives the less expensive Toyota another argument. GMC advertises up to 9,000 pounds for the AT4, while Toyota rates the comparable short-bed CrewMax TRD Off-Road at roughly 11,000. The Sierra range’s 13,300-pound maximum belongs to a different configuration.

Bed volume and payload also answer different questions. A larger box gives you more space, while the payload rating limits the combined weight the truck can carry. A family, their luggage, and a trailer’s tongue weight can use that allowance before the bed looks particularly full. I did not tow with either. Buyers should check the specific truck’s trailer and payload ratings, allowing for occupants, cargo, and tongue weight; choosing an off-road version can change what remains available for work.

What I would actually pay for

Between the trucks I drove, I would choose the V8 Sierra. Its engine delivered enough enjoyment to make the indulgence feel worthwhile, and the cabin gave me more to appreciate between uses. I would be more selective about the options, though. The engine, useful cameras, and practical bed equipment deserve priority over additions that mainly dress up the truck.

The Toyota becomes much harder to dismiss when I price a Limited TRD Off-Road. Around $8,800 separates the illustrated configurations before destination and further options, with the Toyota now supplying several comforts missing from my SR5-based tester. That leaves a more honest buying decision. Someone content with cloth and smaller screens can save considerably more with the SR5, while someone who wants comfort alongside trail capability should compare the Limited before deciding whether the GMC is worth the stretch.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

The 2026 Ford Ranger and Chevrolet Colorado give buyers plenty of room to make those decisions. I got to know them through a 2.7-liter V6 Ranger Lariat on a roughly 620-mile trip between Vancouver, B.C., and Vancouver, Washington, and a week with a Colorado Trail Boss around coastal British Columbia. City traffic and gravel backroads gave their respective talents—and irritations—somewhere to expose themselves. Those two trucks are the lenses through which I experienced both lineups, but we’ll start with what the different trims buy you, then move on to the engines, cabins, beds, and towing capabilities. Along the way, my time behind each wheel helps answer the question that gets harder as the options accumulate: which features would I actually pay for, and which truck would I rather live with?

What Your Money Buys Across The Lineups

Ford offers XL, XLT, Lariat, and Raptor variants of the Ranger. Chevrolet advertises WT, Custom, LT, Trail Boss, Z71, and ZR2 versions, with the Bison package taking the ZR2 further into specialist territory.

Prices exclude destination, options, taxes, and dealer charges. Regular Ranger starting prices cover the 2.3-liter engine and rear-wheel drive; the 2.7-liter V6 requires optional 4×4. Colorado Trail Boss, Z71, and ZR2 have standard 4WD.

Chevrolet starts $1,150 lower, but neither brand wins the value argument at every price point. XLT and LT begin around $36,000; Lariat and Z71 start within $150 of each other. A ZR2 starts $6,965 below a Raptor, before Bison or other options, but offers far less potent performance. Ford lets buyers combine its regular trims with an FX4 package, whereas Chevrolet gives its off-road models more distinct identities. The handsome, lifted Trail Boss I drove occupies one branch of that range, though we suspect a Tremor-branded Ranger will eventually arrive to directly take on Chevy’s no-frills overland-ready version.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Two 2.7s, With Two Fewer Cylinders In The Chevy

Ford offers three engines in the Ranger: a 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder, a 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6, and a 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6. Chevrolet uses the same 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder throughout the Colorado range, paired with an eight-speed automatic. Every Ranger uses a 10-speed automatic transmission, and every Colorado uses an 8-speed.

Manufacturer-rated outputs; Raptor figures are based on premium fuel.[4–6]

That gives even the least expensive Colorado 40 more horsepower and 120 more lb-ft than a standard Ranger. Comparing the two 2.7-liter engines I drove, Ford has just five more horsepower, while Chevrolet has 30 more lb-ft, meaning that opting for six cylinders doesn’t automatically get you the strongest torque figure. In fact, Chevrolet’s four-cylinder makes the same torque as the Ranger Raptor, albeit with far less horsepower.

The Chevy backed that up with eager low-speed response, a well-matched eight-speed, and an entertaining turbo whistle. The Ranger pulled hard on boost, but lag and reluctant downshifts could disrupt smooth driving. Its transmission was also less agreeable in slower traffic, where it often seemed unsure of which gear to be in. My impressions favor the TurboMax for everyday driving. Ford’s more diverse engine lineup still deserves credit: you can retain the less expensive 2.3, upgrade to the 2.7 without buying a Raptor, or spend considerably more for the Raptor’s additional 95 horsepower over any Colorado. Still, the Colorado’s powertrain offers far more for less, generally speaking.

That engine equation is likely to change for 2027, however. As Autoblog reported on October 19, the Ranger’s XLT and Lariat are expected to replace their optional 2.7-liter V6 with “a bigger, more powerful 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6.” That likely means a detuned version of the Raptor’s engine, though that report didn’t confirm final output or pricing.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Cabin Changes As You Climb The Range

Both trucks offer crew cabs and five seats. Chevrolet installs an 11.3-inch touchscreen and 11-inch instrument display across its range. Ranger XL and XLT start with a 10-inch touchscreen and an 11-inch cluster; XLT adds a 12-inch touchscreen, while Lariat and Raptor get two 12-inch displays. My Lariat demonstrated the appeal of spending more on the Ford: heated ActiveX seats, B&O audio, proximity entry, and a useful power-sliding rear window. Opening that glass reduced buffeting with the side windows down. The seat, though durably appointed, wasn’t the most comfortable place to spend two separate six-hour straight driving stints, and its stiff headrests and limited arm support left my neck and shoulders aching. The Colorado’s Evotex seats suited my outings better, though apart from some multi-hour highway jaunts, I didn’t take the Colorado on as extensive a road trip as I did with the Ranger, so take that with a grain of salt.

My Trail Boss lacked proximity unlocking and a telescoping steering wheel, but crucially, those aren’t shortcomings across the Colorado lineup. LT, Z71, and ZR2 have both, but even a Ranger XL supplies a telescoping wheel. Chevrolet’s trim ladder therefore requires closer scrutiny before consideration. The less expensive LT has conveniences the Trail Boss omits. Z71 combines more cabin amenities with its outdoorsy presentation, and it also offers ventilated front seats, which ZR2 includes as standard; the upper Rangers’ front seats offer heating without ventilation. I preferred the Chevy’s cabin overall, but I’d choose its equipment carefully. Paying more doesn’t always mean keeping everything from the cheaper version.

Off-Road Hardware Changes The Character

The regular Rangers provide a familiar pickup layout, with rear leaf springs. The FX4 package adds off-road-tuned shocks, skid protection, and Trail Control without requiring the Raptor’s price or thirsty engine. The Colorado Trail Boss, by contrast, takes a visibly different approach with a two-inch lift and a wider stance. My Reef Blue example’s optional 20-inch wheels and 33-inch tires looked the part, although its firm ride was obvious on rough roads. The standard setup is 18-inch wheels with 32-inch tires.

Z71 brings additional equipment without the Trail Boss’s two-inch lift. ZR2 is the more substantial mechanical departure, with a three-inch lift, Multimatic DSSV dampers, and front and rear lockers. Bison adds 35-inch mud-terrain tires, further underbody protection, and jounce-control dampers. Ford answers with the Raptor’s Fox Live Valve dampers, coil-sprung Watts-link rear suspension, front and rear lockers, and a 405-hp V6. These are meaningful reasons to shop particular versions.

Beds, Back Seats, And Trailer Numbers

Both ranges offer a single crew-cab, roughly five-foot-bed format. Ford gives you a wider bed floor; Chevrolet gives you more length.

Payload and towing are configuration-dependent maxima, not every truck’s capacity. Options, occupants, cargo, and trailer tongue weight affect usable capacity. The highest payload and towing figures need not occur together.

A tenth of an inch doesn’t make one rearward cabin substantially more desirable than the other, but the bed-width difference could matter for your regular load. I also liked the Colorado’s tailgate ruler markings, and its roughly 2 more inches of length is worth noting. For towing, Chevrolet’s headline advantage is only 200 pounds on most models. Ford’s base four-cylinder can reach its regular Ranger maximum, so the V6 upgrade doesn’t raise the ceiling. Choose Raptor or ZR2 hardware, and the towing limit drops, though the Raptor sacrifices more hauling capability than the ZR2 does. Fuel economy also depends entirely upon specification. My V6 Ranger returned 22.2 mpg on its highway-heavy trip; the Trail Boss managed roughly 17 in mixed use, but their different routes skew that comparison.

Which One I’d Rather Live With

Ford makes a persuasive case through choice: an affordable four-cylinder, an optional V6, and a Raptor with substantially more horsepower than Chevrolet offers. Its wider bed and available cabin equipment add practical reasons to consider it. That said, I’d still buy the Colorado out of these two if it came down to it. Its standard engine supplies the torque I want without an upgrade, and I preferred how its powertrain and cabin worked during my test. Plus, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit its loud, whistling turbo noises hadn’t factored into that decision. The Colorado’s appeal goes beyond the Trail Boss badge, but it’s still the one I’d go for, since I appreciated its no-frills, pure-capability direction, though I still wish it at least had a telescoping steering wheel.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Three days and 1,000 kilometers—or approximately 620 miles—later, I returned home and immediately handed back the keys, having exhausted essentially every inch of my mileage allowance. The Ranger had carried my luggage and gear, crawled through Seattle traffic in both directions, endured Vancouver’s severely outdated Massey Tunnel during a particularly disastrous rush hour, and delivered pretty decent fuel economy in spite of it all. It also shook at elevated highway speeds, fought against me at slower speeds with a remarkably jolty transmission, and left my neck rather less enthusiastic about the journey than the rest of me. By the end, the Ranger had earned much of my respect, but it still hadn’t won me over.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving: 7.0/10 — Strong Numbers, Rough Execution

Offering the Ranger with a 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 is a compelling move by Ford, especially as its principal rivals have abandoned six-cylinder engines entirely. Its 315 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque provide ample evidence for the decision’s effectiveness once both turbochargers had finally spooled up. Under full throttle, the Ranger is genuinely quick for a midsize pickup. It had enough power to merge assertively from a stop, and it never felt strained once boost arrived. The problem was how long I sometimes had to wait for it. Passing required more anticipation than the output figures suggest, as pressing the accelerator prompted a notable pause while the transmission lazily selected a lower gear and the turbos built boost, after which the Ranger surged forward convincingly.

The V6 also lacks much character. It sounds coarse, even bland, compared with the Colorado’s 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder, which produces an entertaining diesel-like turbo whistle, and even more torque. Even the Tacoma’s turbo four can sound far more memorable when fitted with Toyota’s raised air intake, which amplifies its blow-off noises to an almost comical degree. More cylinders don’t automatically produce more personality, and the Ranger’s 2.7-liter V6 is proof of that. Far more troublesome, though, was the 10-speed automatic. Delayed engagement, abrupt downshifts, rough upshifts, and occasional indecision made it feel as though I was constantly arguing with it. Stop-and-go traffic exposed its worst tendencies, with the lower gears delivering a particularly jolty experience whenever traffic began to move again.

Its efficiency, however, was considerably more impressive. My trip-computer average settled at 10.6 L/100 km, equivalent to approximately 22.2 mpg U.S., over a journey dominated by highway driving but including Seattle congestion and an exceptionally slow return through Metro Vancouver. That nearly matched the Ranger 2.7L 4×4’s official 23-mpg highway estimate despite my not treating every accelerator input as an exercise in fuel conservation. A full tank covered the entire southbound drive with approximately one-quarter remaining. For a four-wheel-drive pickup with all-terrain tires and a twin-turbo V6, that is a difficult figure to fault. City mileage would undoubtedly be less flattering, but as a long-distance machine, the Ranger proved unexpectedly economical.

The ride was about what I expect from a midsize pickup: slightly busy, but never excessively harsh. Road and wind noise remained controlled, while the all-terrain tires contributed less hum than their appearance suggested. The steering is light and mostly forgettable, although the Ranger tracks confidently and never feels unnecessarily cumbersome. One concern emerged at approximately 80 mph, though. A repeatable vibration appeared through the steering wheel before spreading through the truck’s body as speed increased. I couldn’t connect it to any particular surface, crosswind, or tire-pressure warning, and it happened consistently enough that I couldn’t dismiss it as an isolated patch of road. Because this was just one press vehicle, I wouldn’t go so far as to diagnose it as a model-wide fault from the driver’s seat, but it did reduce my confidence at higher interstate speeds.

The underlying chassis nevertheless showed its composure during a genuine emergency. Another driver suddenly moved into my lane without seeing the Ranger, forcing me partially onto the grassy median to avoid contact. The truck remained stable and responsive, allowing me to return safely to the pavement once the lane was clear, and after laying on the horn in furious anger. It wasn’t a situation I could have anticipated, but the Ranger’s ability to react as quickly as I did inspired confidence.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Technology: 8.3/10 — Useful Equipment Without Needless Complexity

The Ranger Lariat combines a 12-inch digital instrument cluster with a vertically oriented 12-inch center touchscreen. Both are clear, responsive, and logically organized, while wireless smartphone integration worked reliably throughout the trip. The wireless charging pad also did its job effectively, more than can be said for most, and did so without turning my phone into a cast iron skillet. Ford’s 360-degree camera was also especially valuable when parking. The Ranger is easier to place than a full-size pickup, but its tall hood and squared-off body still make the camera system more than a luxury in tight parking lots.

Adaptive cruise control managed speed and spacing competently. I stopped using it after short periods, however, because the inconsistent flow and poor lane discipline on busy interstates made manually adapting to traffic feel more natural. Staying actively involved also helps me remain alert on long drives. The lane-keeping assistance could occasionally become annoying, although it was never among the industry’s most irritating examples. The standard 10-speaker B&O system was undoubtedly the cabin’s technical standout. Its clarity and bass remained impressive at highway speeds, and it gave me one less reason to hyperfocus on what the transmission was doing beneath me.

Exterior: 8.2/10 — Handsomer, Even If It Still Blends In

The current Ranger presents itself far better than its rounded and comparatively anonymous predecessor, though I still don’t believe it’s as distinctive as the better-known Rangers that came before its post-2011 North American hiatus. Still, its upright front fascia, squared-off body, and angular taillights give it a tougher, more distinctive stance without the visual theatrics of the Raptor. Marsh Grey also suits it extremely well—the warm, muddy gray has enough brown in it to look interesting under changing light, pairs naturally with the truck’s black trim, and hides road grime effectively.

The Black Appearance Package adds a black grille and 18-inch black-painted aluminum wheels, and those wheels became some of my favorite exterior details on the entire truck. Their intricate, angular design adds much-needed texture to the otherwise restrained body, while the all-terrain tires provide just enough sidewall to look purposeful. Even so, the Ranger still lacks the instantly recognizable character of the Tacoma and doesn’t look as cohesive to me as the current Colorado. It’s handsome, though not especially memorable.

Interior And Practicality: 7.4/10 — Functional, But Not The Class Benchmark

The Lariat cabin is pleasant enough at first glance. Its ActiveX upholstery feels durable, the major controls are sensibly placed, and the assembly quality gave me no reason for concern. Ford also retains enough physical controls to keep common functions from becoming touchscreen chores. Spend several uninterrupted hours inside, though, and its ergonomic compromises become clearer. The driving position is upright, arm and elbow support is limited, and the front headrests feel unusually stiff. My back survived each multi-hour stint without much complaint, but my shoulders and neck became progressively less comfortable. The Chevrolet Colorado’s interior, by contrast, feels richer and more contemporary, while newer Tacoma variants have a stronger visual identity. The Ranger’s global-market roots show through in a cabin that feels comparatively narrow, upright, and utilitarian—even in Lariat form.

I traveled alone and therefore used the rear seat as a secure luggage compartment. My carry-on suitcase, backpack and camera bag all fit easily, which mattered because the five-foot bed lacked the security of a tonneau cover. Rear under-seat storage provides another useful place to keep smaller items away from curious eyes. The spray-in bedliner and integrated box-side step make the 43.5-cubic-foot bed easier to use, although I didn’t tow or carry a meaningful payload during this test. The optional 400-watt Pro Power Onboard outlet also adds useful flexibility for tools and smaller electrical equipment. One seemingly minor feature made an outsized difference on the road: the power-sliding rear window. Opening it dramatically reduced buffeting when the side windows were lowered, making it possible to enjoy fresh air at highway speeds without blowing out my eardrums.

Value: 7.5/10 — The V6 Is Unique, But Not Automatically Superior

A U.S.-market Ranger Lariat begins at $44,450 before destination and options. My Canadian test truck had a base price of $55,095 CAD and was delivered for $64,570 CAD. Its additions included the $2,895 CAD 2.7-liter V6, $600 Marsh Grey paint, $675 Black Appearance Package, $1,165 Advanced Towing and Technology Package, a $295 box-side step, a $550 Convenience Package, and a $700 spray-in bedliner. I would retain most of that equipment, particularly the V6, appearance package, towing technology, and side step. The numbers illustrate what the Ranger gains—and does not gain—from its additional cylinders:

Maximum figures vary by trim, drivetrain, and equipment.

The Ranger’s V6 produces 5 more horsepower than the Colorado’s, but the Chevrolet produces 30 additional pound-feet of torque and can tow 200 pounds more when properly configured. Toyota’s standard engine trails the Ranger, although the i-Force Max hybrid eclipses it for both horsepower and torque. The Ford’s clearest distinction is therefore the appeal of experience and potential durability of a non-hybrid six-cylinder—not outright numerical dominance. For someone who regularly needs truck capability but also intends to use it as a daily driver, the Ranger remains a credible choice. Its manageable dimensions, good highway economy, 7,500-pound towing ceiling, and broad collection of useful equipment create a strong foundation. Unfortunately, its transmission makes the truck feel less refined than those fundamentals deserve. The Colorado has a more intriguing engine and nicer cabin, while the Tacoma possesses stronger character and remains the truck I would personally choose first.

Verdict: 7.7/10 — It Earned My Respect, But Not My Preference

Long journeys reveal whether a vehicle just makes a dazzling first impression or remains convincing once that initial novelty wears off. Across more than 620 miles, the Ranger proved relatively economical, practical, and sufficiently stylish. Its twin-turbo V6 delivered real strength, the B&O stereo made six-hour stints easier, and the power-sliding rear glass became one of those features I would want on every vehicle. During an unexpected evasive maneuver, its chassis also demonstrated reactive composure when it mattered.

But distance exposed the other side just as clearly. The transmission was clunky far too often, the engine lacked the character its cylinder count promised, the driving position left my neck stiff, and the recurring high-speed vibration was difficult to ignore. The 2026 Ford Ranger Lariat is a good midsize pickup with several genuinely persuasive strengths, but it simply does not feel as polished or distinctive as the Chevrolet Colorado, nor did it charm me as effectively as the Toyota Tacoma. Six hundred miles gave it enough time to earn some of my respect, but they also gave it enough time to unravel its numerous weaknesses.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Especially after recently spending time in a few different Ram 1500s, the Toyota felt a bit, well, dinky, inside. The black cloth upholstery, broad expanses of workaday plastic, and comically undersized infotainment display made it resemble a fleet truck that had wandered unusually far up the price ladder. Fit and finish were reassuringly Toyota-like, but the richness and sense of occasion found inside the Ram were nowhere to be seen. Slowly, though, the Tundra dismantled my skepticism by being exceptionally agreeable to drive. It rode better than expected, felt less cumbersome than the Ram, and dealt with the ordinary irritations of full-size-truck ownership without constantly reminding me of how large it was. Its best qualities weren’t decorative—they revealed themselves through actual use.

That point became clearest when two good friends and I drove it east, out of the densely packed urban streets of Vancouver, British Columbia, to Stave Lake for a bit of fun off the beaten path. After leaving the main gravel route, we explored sections of sand, mud, rock, and uneven ruts that required more than just the pretense of off-road capability. From there, we continued to Hope, British Columbia, to watch a demolition derby where an International truck eventually charged at full speed into an old school bus with a Saab stacked on its roof. Of course, the Tundra sat on the sidelines for this ordeal. Across approximately 650 kilometers, or just over 400 miles, of city streets, highways, and loose-surface driving, the Toyota proved considerably more persuasive in motion than it had been from the driver’s seat in a parking lot. Its cabin never stopped feeling a bit cheap, but the truck surrounding it became incredibly difficult not to respect.

2026 Toyota Tundra TRD Off-Road specifications

The nomenclature here requires some explanation. Toyota Canada markets this configuration as a CrewMax TRD Off Road grade built from the SR5, while the price label identifies the underlying vehicle as a CrewMax SR and lists “SR5 TRD Off Road” as a $5,431 package. American buyers will find the closest equivalent in a Tundra SR5 equipped with the TRD Off-Road Package, which adds $2,125 to the cost of a 4WD SR5.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving — 8.0/10: Better Than Its First Impression

Toyota’s 3.4-liter twin-turbocharged V6 produces healthy numbers, but it doesn’t deliver them all at once. Press the accelerator gently, and the Tundra moves away smoothly, with the 10-speed automatic moving through its ratios without much ceremony. Ask for everything, however, and there is a noticeable pause as the transmission downshifts and the turbochargers spool up. Once the boost arrives, this is a genuinely quick truck. Its 479 pound-feet of torque makes full-throttle acceleration feel almost excessive for something this large, even if the initial response requires more patience than the specification sheet suggests.

Having recently driven the hybridized 2027 Tundra TRD Pro, I admittedly missed the electric motor’s ability to fill the gap before the turbos spool up. Highway overtaking in the non-hybrid Tundra requires a little more planning: request power, wait for the kickdown, and then hold on as the entire powertrain arrives in a rush. The transmission occasionally seemed to be considering one gear too many, but it remained smooth throughout most of the week. Eco, Normal, and Sport modes made only subtle differences, and I generally left the truck in its default setting. I also disabled the automatic stop-start system, as I tend to do. What the engine lacks is personality. It sounds okay, but little more than that. Toyota’s old naturally aspirated V8 supplied a relaxed, honest character that this turbocharged V6 can’t entirely replicate. Still, I didn’t miss the V8 as much as I did when driving a Hurricane-powered Ram 1500. The Ram feels as though too much of its identity has become synonymous with that engine. The Toyota’s V6 may be bland, but it feels more naturally integrated into the truck around it, and that truck is remarkably polished.

The Tundra’s coil-spring rear suspension controls its body without producing the brittle, empty-bed bounce that still affects some pickups. Harsh pavement rarely unsettled it; highway cruising was smooth, and the TRD Off-Road suspension never punished occupants for choosing the more capable package. The steering could offer more communication, but its light weighting makes the truck easy to place. Even downtown underground parking garages were manageable, although a few extra corrections were often required, as to be expected of a full-size pickup. The Tundra never seemed to expand around me in the way the Ram sometimes did.

That ease continued at Stave Lake. The primary route can be completed in pretty much any ordinary crossover, but the optional obstacles around the water feature deeper sand, mud, exposed rocks, and uneven ruts. Here, the Tundra no longer felt like a large road vehicle dressed for an outdoor fashion catalog and began to behave like a proper off-roader. I used both 4-High and 4-Low, along with Multi-Terrain Select and the locking rear differential. Toyota restricts the differential lock to 4-Low, which feels unnecessarily limiting, but the hardware worked effectively once engaged. The tires provided plenty of grip, the suspension kept the body composed, and the Tundra crossed obstacles that tested its clearance without scraping.

It inspired confidence similar to that of the 2027 Trailhunter I had previously driven, though it couldn’t quite match the TRD Pro. More importantly, nothing about the package felt ornamental. Its capability was available without requiring the price, visual theater, or specialized suspension hardware of Toyota’s flagship off-road model. This particular truck had already returned from a multi-week excursion through the Northwest Territories. Its Mudbath paint wore plenty of fine branch scratches as evidence, yet the cabin remained rattle-free, and the chassis produced no odd sounds. It felt no worse for the experience.

Fuel economy settled at 16 L/100 km, or roughly 14.7 mpg, according to the trip computer. That included urban traffic, highway driving, and some low-speed off-road use. It isn’t economical in any conventional sense, but it felt reasonable for a full-size four-wheel-drive truck driven under mixed conditions, and with the windows often rolled down. Toyota’s enormous 32.2-gallon fuel tank also gives every 2026 Tundra a useful cruising range, even if refilling it requires a certain emotional detachment from your bank statement.

Technology — 7.0/10: Old-Fashioned In Good And Bad Ways

The Tundra’s eight-inch infotainment display isn’t objectively tiny, but it looks almost apologetic in the middle of such a broad dashboard, especially if you’ve become accustomed to the much larger screen available in higher grade trims. The 4.2-inch driver-information screen appears even older. Neither display contributes much to the sense that this is an expensive modern truck. Both work properly, though, which seems to fit the overall theme of this no-frills off-roader. Wireless Apple CarPlay connected reliably; the interface was intuitive, and the truck retained physical controls for nearly every function I regularly used. Climate settings, drive modes, and off-road systems can all be adjusted without pecking through digital menus. That simplicity supports the truck’s broader personality. It makes an unimpressive demonstration but a convincing everyday tool.

Toyota Safety Sense 2.5 includes adaptive cruise control, lane-tracing assistance, lane-departure alert, and automatic emergency braking, and, thankfully, none of those systems ever became intrusive during the week. Blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert also proved valuable, particularly when maneuvering something this long through urban traffic. The standard backup camera is clear enough, and the parking sensors help compensate for the truck’s size. This specification does not include the more useful Multi-Terrain Monitor or the Panoramic View Monitor, which are offered on higher-end configurations. At nearly $67,200 CAD, a surround-view camera would not feel extravagant.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Exterior — 8.5/10: Mudbath Cleans Up Nicely

Mudbath reminds me more of Louis Litt from Suits than a paint color, but it suits the Tundra beautifully. The warm brown finish emphasizes the truck’s size without making it look unnecessarily aggressive, and it hides dust and trail grime better than almost any conventional color. Both friends who joined me were immediately taken with it. The cabin may not create much occasion, but the exterior does. The grille remains enormous because subtlety appears to have been removed from the universally understood full-size-truck form factor some time ago. Yet the chrome surround, squared bodywork and 18-inch TRD wheels come together coherently. The truck looks substantial without descending into parody.

This version is also much more restrained than the TRD Pro. It has the stance and hardware to look purposeful, but it doesn’t suggest every commute is preparation for a desert-racing campaign. The TRD grille, all-terrain tires, and Mudbath paint give it enough identity without asking for constant attention. Even the scratches left by its Arctic excursion somehow suited it. They made the Tundra look lived in rather than abused—the visual equivalent of a good pair of boots that has seen more than just the sidewalk.

Interior — 6.5/10: Honest, Spacious And A Bit Too Sparse

The interior is where Toyota’s emphasis on function begins to resemble cost-cutting. Black cloth upholstery might be practical, but it feels conspicuously basic at this price. Toyota’s SofTex synthetic material would have been more convincing and arguably just as appropriate for a truck exposed to mud, damp clothing, and outdoor equipment. Ventilated seats would also have been welcome. Material quality falls short of comparable American pickups. The Ram 1500, in particular, demonstrates how much warmth, richness, and personality can be introduced without compromising utility. By comparison, the Tundra’s dashboard is dark, blocky, and a little barren, yet it’s difficult to criticize how the cabin is assembled. Panel gaps were consistent, the major touchpoints felt durable, and nothing rattled despite the truck’s earlier extreme adventures. The screen, trim, and switchgear all remained solid when pressed or pulled. Toyota may not have spent much to make the cabin feel expensive, but it appears to have spent enough to ensure it won’t fall apart anytime soon.

The driving position is comfortable, and the power-adjustable front seats remain supportive on longer journeys. Heated seats, a heated steering wheel, and dual-zone climate control all worked effectively. CrewMax rear-seat space is generous, and both passengers had room to stretch out. Storage beneath the rear bench allowed us to conceal bags and photography equipment when parked—an ordinary feature that proved more valuable during the trip than decorative lighting or a larger screen would have been. The power-dropping rear window was another highlight. Lowering it brought fresh air through the cabin while avoiding the low-frequency buffeting that often occurs when only the side windows are open. My passengers quickly became enthusiastic about it, and so did I.

2026 Toyota Tundra CrewMax interior dimensions

The measurements support the impression that the second row is legitimately spacious. The CrewMax actually provides slightly more rear legroom than front legroom, while its generous width makes the middle position usable rather than merely theoretical.

Value — 7.5/10: The Money Went Underneath

My Canadian-market test truck started at $59,685 CAD. Its $5,431 SR5 TRD Off Road package, destination charge, and applicable fees increased the total to $67,194.92 CAD before tax and registration. Judged by its cabin alone, it feels overpriced. The upholstery is basic, the displays are dated, and several comfort features available in less expensive crossovers are missing. Look beneath the surface, however, and the argument changes dramatically. The package adds TRD dampers, 18-inch off-road wheels, a locking rear differential, Multi-Terrain Select, Crawl Control, Downhill Assist Control, and the supporting equipment required to make those features useful. It also brings heated power-adjustable front seats, dual-zone climate control, blind-spot monitoring, and rear cross-traffic alert. I would unquestionably choose the package again, but whether I would choose it on this particular trim is more complicated.

If I were already spending nearly $70,000 CAD, I would be tempted to stretch to a Limited TRD Off Road. SofTex or leather, ventilated seats, a larger display, and richer interior materials would make the truck more enjoyable to own every day. This simpler model offers the necessary mechanical substance, but it occasionally feels as though Toyota forgot that most of its owners will likely use these as their daily drivers and family haulers. In the United States, the 2026 Tundra SR5 starts at $46,510 before adding four-wheel drive, the CrewMax body, TRD equipment, and destination fees. The Ram 1500 Warlock is a useful conceptual rival, while the GMC Sierra AT4 offers a more expensive, better-equipped alternative.

The Toyota rides better than the Warlock I recently tested and feels easier to drive, but the Ram counters with greater cabin richness and—when equipped with a Hemi—considerably more personality. If I were buying purely with my heart, the V8 Ram would be difficult to resist. If I intended to keep the truck for years and use it regularly off-pavement, the Tundra’s straightforward nature would carry considerable weight. Toyota’s reputation for durability also remains a crucial part of the appeal, although this generation has complicated that story. Certain 2022 and 2023 gas-powered Tundras were recalled because machining debris could cause engine damage, rough running, or a loss of power. Toyota’s remedy involved replacing the engine assembly. A subsequent recall covered certain 2024 Tundras after similar concerns emerged. Neither campaign listed 2026 models, but the reputational damage cannot simply be ignored. The condition of my test truck offered one encouraging data point—weeks in the Northwest Territories had marred its paint, but not its composure. It still felt tight, smooth, and entirely unbothered by what had happened before and after I received the keys.

Verdict — 8.0/10: Leave The Showroom Before Deciding

The 2026 Toyota Tundra TRD Off-Road doesn’t exactly sell itself without qualification. Its cabin looks inexpensive, its small screens appear dated, and its engine lacks the charm of a good old-fashioned V8. Park it beside a Ram 1500, open both doors, and the Toyota feels surprisingly bargain-bin. Drive them, though, and the gap between them becomes far thinner. The Tundra rides beautifully, feels unusually approachable for its size, and possesses genuine off-road ability without the cost or theatrics of a TRD Pro. Its controls are simple, its cabin is spacious, and its useful features reveal themselves naturally over time rather than aiming to impress superficially.

That may be the Tundra’s most convincing trick. The things that initially disappoint become less important as the truck’s deeper qualities emerge. It trades immediate gratification for longer-term credibility, and although Toyota may have pushed that bargain too far inside the cabin, the mechanical substance underneath is difficult to dismiss. Some vehicles peak during the walkaround, but the Tundra TRD Off-Road only begins to make sense once you climb aboard, drive it somewhere interesting, and get it as dirty as you can manage.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Unlike the Night Edition packages applied to Ram’s commercial pickup trucks, this one is going onto chassis-cab models designed around commercial work and upfitting. The result is an appearance-focused option for a part of the lineup where the body behind the cab can ultimately be configured for a wide range of jobs.

The Night Edition Changes The Look, Not The Mission

The Chassis Cab Night Edition follows the same basic formula used by Ram elsewhere in its lineup: replace chrome and brightwork with darker exterior details.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

The package includes a Sport Performance hood, black-painted wheels, black badging and dark headlight bezels. The grille surround, front bumper and fender flares are finished in body color, while ParkSense front and rear park assist is also included.

Ram says the package is aimed at Chassis Cab owners and commercial customers who want a workhorse truck with a more distinctive road presence. The company is positioning that appearance as an extension of the customer’s business, rather than simply another mechanical upgrade.

Three Chassis Cab Models Can Get It

The Night Edition is available across the Ram 3500, 4500 and 5500 Chassis Cab lineup. Big Horn buyers pay $3,595 for the package when their truck is equipped with the Level 1 or Level 2 Equipment Group. The price drops to $3,045 on Laramie models.

Both regular-cab and crew-cab configurations are eligible. Ram plans to open the order books during the fourth quarter of 2026, with deliveries starting later this year. The package will make a public appearance at the 2026 Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa.

The Cummins Still Brings 800 Pound-Feet

The Night Edition, being a cosmetic-only differentiator, doesn’t get any powertrain changes. The 2027 Chassis Cab lineup offers a 6.4-liter HEMI V8 producing 375 horsepower and 429 lb-ft of torque, or a 6.7-liter Cummins turbo-diesel inline-six producing 60 hp and 800 lb-ft. Both engines are paired with a TorqueFlite HD eight-speed automatic transmission with an electronic column shifter.

The capabilities vary considerably across the three Chassis Cab models. A Ram 3500 Chassis Cab with the Cummins can tow up to 25,590 pounds and carry up to 6,830 pounds of payload. The figures rise to 29,400 pounds of maximum towing and 8,420 pounds of payload for the 4500. At the top of the range, the Ram 5500 with the Cummins is rated for up to 34,540 pounds of towing and 11,490 pounds of payload, with a maximum gross combined weight rating of 43,000 pounds.

It Is Still Built Around The Upfit

Underneath the styling package is a chassis designed around commercial applications. Ram offers four frame lengths measured from the cab to the rear axle: 60, 84, 108 and 120 inches. The frame rails are spaced 34 inches apart. The 2027 frame uses up to 97 percent high-strength steel and eight separate cross members. At the rear, the frame uses a C-channel design with a flat mounting surface.

Ram also keeps the area above the frame rails free of components, leaving room for upfit and accessory installation. Pre-drilled holes are positioned throughout the frame to help route upfit lines or mount hardware. That combination is what makes the Night Edition an interesting addition to the lineup. The visual treatment is meant to draw customers who want something more distinctive, but with the core essence of the truck underneath.

A Proper Step Up From the V-Class

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

The VLE rides on Mercedes’ new VAN.EA electric architecture, a clean break from the Vito-based EQV and the combustion V-Class it’s replacing. UK pricing is expected to start around £75,000 (roughly $100,000), with the single-motor VLE 300 producing 272 hp from a 115kWh battery pack and covering roughly 440 miles WLTP (approximately 320-340 miles on the U.S EPA cycle), while the dual-motor VLE 400 4Matic adds all-wheel drive and 416 hp. Both run on an 800-volt system capable of adding up to 220 miles of range in 15 minutes at a fast charger — figures pulled straight from Mercedes’ sedan and SUV lineup rather than a typical van’s spec sheet, and a notable jump over the outgoing EQV in every respect that matters.

The Segment Mercedes Wants to Create

Luxury MPVs remain a niche curiosity in Europe and North America, but they’re an established status symbol elsewhere — chauffeur-oriented models have become a fixture in China, where rivals like the Lexus LM, Volvo EM90 and BYD’s Denza D9 already compete for exactly the kind of buyer Mercedes hopes to find in the UK. Mercedes-Benz Vans head Thomas Klein has framed the VLE as the start of a broader repositioning for the division, saying the brand is “redefining a whole segment” with the launch.

There’s an Even Pricier Model Waiting

Mercedes isn’t stopping at the VLE. Sitting above it will be the Mercedes-Maybach VLS, a “Grand Limousine” expected to price north of $200,000 (around £147,000) when it arrives, giving Mercedes a two-tier luxury van lineup that mirrors its Maybach sedan and SUV strategy. Whether buyers in the UK — or the U.S., where the VLE isn’t expected until 2027 or 2028 — actually show up for either model remains to be seen. But Mercedes is clearly betting the segment’s ceiling is higher than its current sales figures suggest, in dollars or pounds.

The Work Truck is built for fleet and commercial use, serving mostly contractors and businesses that need a capable workhorse instead of a luxury vehicle. Here’s a closer look at what comes standard on the 2027 Chevy Silverado WT.

Built To Work, Not Impress

The Work Truck sits at the bottom of the Silverado hierarchy, prioritizing durability and value over luxury. Forget about supple leather and alcantara. Instead, buyers get hard-wearing, easy-to-clean surfaces throughout the cabin – including the floor – and a choice between cloth or leatherette seats finished in black.

Outside, the WT keeps things simple with tiny wheels and black exterior trim, yet stylish with standard LED headlights and taillights. It remains closely associated with fleet duty, making it a popular choice for commercial buyers and aftermarket upfitters.

The Base Truck Gets Serious Tech

One of the biggest upgrades for the 2027 Chevy Silverado is its technology. Even the WT now gets a 16.3-inch infotainment display and a 12.2-inch digital instrument cluster, giving base-model buyers the same screen setup found in higher trims. Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, along with multiple USB connections, are also included.

A long list of standard safety equipment is included, too. Some of the highlights include automated emergency braking with pedestrian and bicyclist detection, adaptive cruise control, front and rear parking sensors, rear cross-traffic alert, a rearview camera, and GM’s vibrating Safety Alert Seat.

The Engines Are Changing Too

Chevrolet has revised the Silverado’s powertrain lineup for 2027. An updated 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder remains the standard engine for the WT and now uses a 10-speed automatic transmission. The lineup also introduces two new V8s and the iconic 3.0-liter turbo-diesel Duramax.

GM is making some cuts, too, discontinuing the Silverado 4500 HD, 5500 HD, and 6500 HD this year while pulling the Chevrolet brand from the Chinese market. Even so, the Silverado 1500 remains one of Chevy’s most important products, and the updated WT proves that entry-level buyers won’t be left behind.

A Seven-Inch Screen Is Finally Coming

According to GM Authority, both the Express and Savana will gain GM’s Infotainment System 3, paired with a seven-inch HD color touchscreen. Bluetooth phone connectivity and audio streaming are confirmed, although Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, SiriusXM and USB connectivity have not yet been confirmed for 2027.

It may not sound revolutionary, especially for an infotainment system that has been around for years, but it’s a game changer for these vans, which have soldiered on with borderline caveman-level audio equipment.

Almost Nothing Else Has Changed

The touchscreen upgrade is particularly amusing considering how little else has changed. The GMC Savana has remained mostly unchanged since its launch in 1996, and the current vans still rely on the same basic formula. For 2026, the Savana uses a standard 4.3-liter V6 producing 276 hp and 298 lb-ft of torque, while an available 6.6-liter V8 produces 401 hp and 464 lb-ft. Both use an eight-speed automatic and rear-wheel drive.

The Chevy Express offers the same engine lineup and drivetrain. For 2027, the Savana will also get four speakers in Passenger models and Crew Vans, while standard Cargo and Cutaway models retain two. Beyond that, GM isn’t exactly reinventing the wheel.

The Recalls Aren’t Helping

Although the new technology upgrade will spruce up the vans’ interiors, they face other reminders of their age. Some 2026 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana vans were recalled over a transmission gear-selection defect, while more than 26,000 were recalled due to a loose nut in the steering gear assembly.

For 2027, GM is at least addressing one of the vans’ most obvious shortcomings. The Express and Savana may still be decades behind the rest of the industry, but their infotainment systems are finally catching up, ever so slightly.

Why This Is A Big Deal

Unlike competitors that retrofit conventional passenger cars, Zoox designed its electric robotaxi exclusively for autonomous ride-hailing. The distinctive carriage-style interior features inward-facing seats with no steering wheel, pedals, or driver’s seat. Capable of reaching speeds up to 75 mph, the vehicle represents a major shift in modern automotive design.

To operate legally, the NHTSA granted Zoox an exemption from federal motor vehicle safety standards that mandate human controls. However, this approval includes strict limitations. Zoox is permitted to deploy a maximum of 2,500 robotaxis annually over the next two years, and the vehicles are strictly prohibited from being sold to private consumers.

Zoox’s Plan For Deployment

Once state and local regulatory hurdles are cleared, Zoox plans to introduce paid commercial service first in Las Vegas, Nevada. The company has already offered free test rides in select areas of Las Vegas and San Francisco, gathering valuable data from passenger trips. Amazon, which purchased Zoox in 2020 for approximately $1.2 billion, ultimately aims to manufacture up to 10,000 units annually at its California production facility near Silicon Valley.

The NHTSA’s approval also mandates enhanced safety oversight. Zoox must provide detailed reports on crashes and unexpected roadway stops, base its remote vehicle operators strictly within the United States, and publish public maps of its operational zones.

Are The Robots Taking Over Yet?

As the U.S. robotaxi market becomes increasingly competitive, Zoox faces intense pressure from rivals like Alphabet’s Waymo, which currently operates modified electric SUVs with standard controls, and Tesla’s proposed Cybercab. Still, this historic federal exemption from the NHTSA cements Zoox’s position as a prominent frontrunner in self-driving technology and establishes a critical regulatory framework for the future of purpose-built autonomous mobility in America. While Robotaxis haven’t taken over our roads yet, recent safety data and government willingness to allow self-driving cars suggest quite a dystopian future – considering my perspective as a little bit of an automotive romantic. By contrast, if you’re somebody who appreciates high-tech advancements, this is a historic step in the right direction.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

By the time you equip the Slate Truck to look and function reasonably well, its price balloons into Tacoma territory. Almost. Assuming a few basic options, we consider the Toyota Tacoma to be priced with Toyota’s SR Upgrade package, which includes parking assists and blind spot monitors, making it roughly a $34,000 truck.

The $30,000 Slate Truck: Building the Basics

The entry-level $24,950 Slate Truck arrives intentionally incomplete. It features unpainted gray plastic body panels, manual crank windows, 17-inch steel wheels, and no factory infotainment system or speakers. It is a shell meant for customization.

To bring the Slate up to standard modern aesthetics and utility, you have to hit the accessory catalog hard. You add a custom vinyl wrap ($500–$1,500), the three-piece 400-watt Bluetooth audio setup and center console ($650), a tablet mount ($100, plus bringing your own $400 tablet), 20-inch wheels with all-terrain tires ($2,200), and utility bed racks with auxiliary lighting ($3,000). At around the same price as a base Tacoma SR, you have a striking, highly customized electric lifestyle vehicle. But mechanically, it remains unchanged. One could argue that the Slate Truck’s best value variant is its absolute bare-bones base spec.

Powertrain and Capability

A fully optioned Slate retains its standard single rear-mounted electric motor producing 181 horsepower and 195 lb-ft of torque. Powered by a 65 kWh lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) battery, it provides an estimated 205 miles of range. It can tow a modest 2,000 pounds and haul 1,550 pounds of payload.

Compare this to the barebones Toyota Tacoma SR, priced at a little over $32,000, even in its absolute lowest trim, the Tacoma packs Toyota’s 2.4-liter turbocharged i-FORCE four-cylinder engine. This powertrain delivers a robust 228 horsepower and 243 lb-ft of torque. More importantly, the Tacoma SR crushes the Slate in sheer utility, boasting a towing capacity of up to 6,500 pounds and a payload rating of 1,705 pounds – extremely capable.

Technology and Safety: The Knockout

Even with thousands in optional extras, the Slate Truck suffers from hard-coded limitations. You cannot buy power windows for the Slate; they simply aren’t offered. It also features basic cruise control and standard mandatory airbags, completely lacking advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Meanwhile, the “barebones” Tacoma SR comes standard with features that the Slate physically cannot offer. Every base Tacoma rolls off the lot with power windows, push-button start, an 8-inch infotainment touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and a fully integrated sound system. On the safety front, the Tacoma includes Toyota Safety Sense 3.0 as standard equipment, meaning you get adaptive cruise control, lane departure alert with steering assist, and a pre-collision system at no extra cost.

The Objective Winner

If you have around $30,000 to spend on a pickup, the Toyota Tacoma SR offers objectively better value. It is safe to assume that the Tacoma will hold value better after the initial purchase premium. It offers vastly superior towing capabilities, more horsepower, comprehensive modern safety technologies, and essential creature comforts like power windows and factory infotainment. Not to forget, starting at $34,000 is the base double-cab Tacoma SR. So long as the budget is not strictly $25,000, the Toyota stands out as far superior when judged based on truck functionality and base-spec equipment.

The Slate Truck is a fascinating, customizable EV experiment that will undoubtedly appeal to urban dwellers and lifestyle buyers looking for an affordable gateway into electric mobility. Think “gadget” rather than “truck”. When optioned up to match the Tacoma’s price tag, the Slate forces you to spend money on cosmetic bandages. Therefore, while the Slate may be worth its baseline $24,950 price-tag, the slightly pricier Toyota invests your dollar directly into structural safety, proven reliability, and heavy-duty performance. If it is possible, the Toyota is worth the stretch.

Legal Action And A Missing Truck?

Former executives and staff members have painted a chaotic picture of the startup’s North American operations. Jason Gies, Windrose’s former head of North American operations, filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan last October seeking $412,500 in unpaid severance. In January 2026, a federal court ruled in Gies’ favor after Windrose failed to respond to the suit. Furthermore, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity ordered the startup in March to pay former director Kyle Maki over $9,700 in back wages. Other employees claim they are owed tens of thousands of dollars in salaries and health insurance premiums, with paychecks consistently arriving late or not at all.

The internal dysfunction reached a bizarre climax earlier this year when one of Windrose’s highly touted electric trucks simply vanished. Valued at $285,000, the big rig became a bargaining chip in a bitter dispute between the CEO and his disgruntled workforce. Two former employees, fired in January, reportedly refused to help Han locate the missing vehicle until the company settled a combined $91,000 in unpaid wages and benefits. The chaos extends beyond payroll; Windrose’s physical footprint in California collapsed following a dispute over a warehouse lease, costing the startup $200,000 in forfeited prepaid rent and delaying its domestic manufacturing plans.

Windrose’s Outlook

While Han acknowledges that the startup struggled to meet payroll, he characterized the disputes as routine growing pains. In contrast, the sheer volume of legal actions suggests a deeper systemic failure. For a company that positioned itself to outpace the Tesla Semi in the race to electrify freight, Windrose Technology serves as a cautionary tale. American operators and investors are left wondering if it can survive its own internal turbulence.

What Slate Said

Speaking to Automotive News Canada, Slate spokesperson Jeff Jablansky explicitly stated that the company’s current strategy stops at the U.S. border. While Slate did not dive into the exact economics behind the decision, the reality of cross-border trade likely killed the math. Since the startup plans to manufacture its vehicles in Indiana, exporting them to Canada would trigger retaliatory 25 percent tariffs on American-built vehicles. When factoring in import duties, logistics, and exchange rates, the truck’s headline-grabbing, sub-$25k price tag would completely vanish, pushing it into standard, uncompetitive EV price territory.

For American readers, this geographic exclusivity is a massive win. Slate’s radically simple formula—which ditches powered seats, giant infotainment touchscreens, and even power windows in favor of hand-crank windows—aims to deliver a pure utility vehicle. Despite the bare-bones interior, it promises a highly practical 205 miles (330 km) of electric range and room for two.

A Calculated Tradeoff?

The strategy is paying off domestically. Slate has already amassed roughly 180,000 reservations from U.S. buyers eager for an affordable workhorse. Production is on track, with initial deliveries scheduled to begin in late 2026. While Canadian buyers will have to wait for Ford’s promised sub-$30,000 compact electric truck arriving in 2027, American consumers hold the exclusive keys to the cheapest new electric pickup on the market.

About Kia’s PV5

So, what exactly is the U.S. market missing? The PV5 is not just another retrofitted cargo box. It is a dedicated platform designed to swap body configurations. It can be built with a multi-seat passenger layout, or even with a high-roof to be a cargo hauler, on a standardized chassis. It undercuts established rivals like the Volkswagen ID. Buzz and Ford E-Transit, both of which are priced at over $50,000, with a starting price equivalent to roughly $39,200. Featuring both NCM and LFP battery options, the PV5 managed to capture 9% of the light commercial EV market in Europe within six months of its launch.

That runaway success is the direct cause of the current bottleneck. Kia is not facing a traditional parts shortage; this is a supply allocation crisis driven by rabid international demand. The automaker moved over 10,000 units of its record-breaking van in Europe alone since late 2025 and ranks as a top-selling EV in South Korea. The van is proving so popular that Kia is now actively rationing its export supply to new markets.

Not Enough Supply

In regions just now receiving the PV5, local executives are publicly managing expectations. Kia Australia’s management recently admitted they are capped at a conservative target of just 50 units per month, despite heavy lobbying by dealers for more inventory. “Supply will be one of the things that we’ve got to juggle, because globally it’s a success,” noted Roland Rivero, Kia Australia’s product planning chief.

Where does that leave the American market? Empty-handed. While the PV5 is slated to hit Canada by late 2026—equipped with a North American Charging Standard (NACS) port—Kia has confirmed it currently has no plans to introduce the van to the U.S. Even if Kia wanted to bring it stateside, the ongoing global rationing proves they lack the manufacturing bandwidth to supply the massive American commercial sector with its new lineup of vans. For now, U.S. operators will have to settle for the expensive, traditional alternatives while the rest of the world fights over Kia’s limited inventory.

Reality of Physics

The fundamental issue lies in the unforgiving physics of battery packaging. To propel a massive, 7,000-pound vehicle for 300 miles requires an enormous, heavy battery. When you add the core utility that American buyers demand—towing heavy trailers and hauling substantial payloads—the math quickly breaks down. Towing a typical 8,000-pound camper can slash a full-size EV truck’s range by more than 50 percent, turning a 300-mile road trip into a frustrating 110-mile hop between charging stations.

Automakers initially tried to solve this range penalty by cramming in larger battery packs, some extending well beyond 130 kWh. However, this creates a compounding engineering problem. Heavier batteries inherently reduce maximum payload capacities, increase tire wear, and dramatically inflate manufacturing costs. The end result is a premium vehicle that easily costs over $70,000 but cannot realistically match the cross-country towing convenience of traditional gas-powered counterparts. For the average buyer, full-size electric trucks currently make little sense as serious utility vehicles.

The Remedy

Recognizing this glaring misstep, the industry is rapidly pivoting toward smaller, more efficient electric trucks. By abandoning the heavy-duty towing requirements typical of the full-size segment, automotive engineers can utilize much smaller, lighter battery packs. This approach dramatically reduces production costs and improves driving efficiency, making electrification genuinely viable for everyday lifestyle trucks.

Ford is actively leading this charge by developing a highly efficient, compact EV pickup intended to debut with an aggressive target price of roughly $30,000. By shrinking the physical footprint to match a compact Ford Maverick or classic Ranger, automakers bypass the heavy battery death spiral. These smaller vehicles will focus entirely on agile urban utility, passenger comfort, and weekend lifestyle needs rather than hauling massive industrial loads.

For The Future

The era of the $80,000 electric behemoth is clearly cooling off. By finally acknowledging the distinct packaging and towing constraints of current battery technology, major automakers are shifting gears. They are now focusing on building the accessible, right-sized electric trucks that practical American drivers actually need today, ensuring the electric revolution remains a sustainable reality for everyone.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

To address this safety gap, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has launched a new initiative to evaluate trucks in this segment as well as other large commercial cargo vans. This follows the notification of a troubling statistic, which recognized that crashes involving medium or heavy-duty trucks, or light vans, accounted for 6,535 American road fatalities in 2023, amounting to roughly 16 percent of all traffic deaths nationwide.

Preliminary Testing

Rather than extensive crash testing, the initial phase of this program focused on confirming the availability of standard safety equipment such as airbags and seatbelt force limiters. These initial tests paid specific attention to the effectiveness of seatbelt reminders. While federal rules only require seatbelt reminders to chime for four to eight seconds, the IIHS set the standard to be a loud and audible tone, accompanied by a visible warning light, lasting at least 90 seconds. This standard makes sense when considering delivery and trade workers and how often they hop in and out of their vehicles. IIHS data shows that persistent reminders increase overall seatbelt usage by 30 percent.

The initial selection of vehicles included three Class 3 pickups and six cargo vans from manufacturers such as Ford, Stellantis, Rivian, General Motors, and Mercedes-Benz. From this selection of vehicles, only four of the nine met all five of the driver protection criteria. The 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD, the 2025 Ford F-350 SuperCrew, the Chevrolet BrightDrop 400, and the Ram ProMaster 2500 all successfully passed the evaluation. The remaining five vehicles, however, failed the strict 90-second seatbelt reminder test.

The vehicles that did not pass included the Ford T250 Transit, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 2500, Rivian Delivery 500, and Ram 3500, all of which lacked persistent seatbelt alerts. Most notably, the aging Chevrolet Express 2500 fell significantly short by failing both the seatbelt reminder check and lacking effective seatbelt force limiters to prevent chest injury.

Only The Beginning

While this test is far from thorough, this is only the start of a much larger safety push. The IIHS plans to expand its program to evaluate headlights, automatic emergency braking, and even include larger Class 4 through 6 commercial trucks in the near future. By gathering this data, fleet managers and American businesses will finally have the benchmarks needed to prioritize driver safety on the road.

Automakers typically introduce a facelift or mid-cycle update about three years into a model’s production run, followed by a major overhaul or next-generation version a few years later. This helps vehicles stay current with the latest trends, remain relevant in the market, and stay competitive against rivals.

But as the saying goes, there is always an exception to the rule, and the Chevrolet Express may be the perfect example. According to GM Authority, the 2026 Express will essentially carry over into the 2027 model year, which could be seen as the Bowtie brand being unwilling to devote significant resources to a major update. On the other hand, it also reflects another familiar saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Chevrolet’s Commercial Time Machine

The Express was introduced for the 1996 model year and received its first and only major facelift for 2003. As a result, the commercial van remains instantly recognizable today, though it also appears dated compared to newer rivals such as the Ford Transit. The Transit received a significant update for 2020, and Ford now also offers an all-electric variant known as the E-Transit.

Chevrolet offered an all-electric commercial van under the BrightDrop name, but it is a separate, purpose-built EV and shares little with the aging Express.

But perhaps the most notable development is that General Motors will end production of the Chevrolet Silverado MD later this year. The medium-duty truck reportedly shares an assembly facility with certain Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana Cutaway models, which could make the move significant for GM’s broader commercial vehicle operations. Even so, the Express continues to soldier on despite going more than two decades without a major redesign.

Business As Usual For 2027

Because the MY2027 Express will be a carryover, the commercial van will still be offered in cargo and passenger configurations, with the latter available in either LS or the slightly more premium-looking LT trim. The 4.3-liter V6, producing 276 horsepower and 298 lb-ft of torque, will remain the base engine, while the 6.6-liter V8, rated at 401 horsepower and 464 lb-ft of torque, will be available for buyers looking for additional muscle.

The report did not disclose pricing, but for reference, the MY2026 Chevrolet Express starts at $42,200 before destination charges.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, confirmed the official rating, proving this is a hard certification rather than a marketing department target. Operating at roughly six miles per kilowatt-hour, it is the most efficient production electric vehicle on the market.

How Tesla Did It

Before we hand Tesla the crown for powertrain engineering, we need to examine exactly how they achieved this number. The Cybercab didn’t cheat the physics of a traditional passenger sedan; it simply abandoned them.

This vehicle achieves its staggering efficiency by stripping away almost everything that defines a modern car. There is no steering column. There are no pedals. It seats only two passengers and utilizes an aggressive teardrop profile optimized strictly for aerodynamic drag, ignoring rear cargo utility entirely. By cutting out the crash structures and dead weight associated with human controls and family-sized cabins, Tesla equipped the Cybercab with a sub-50 kWh battery pack that still manages to deliver nearly 300 miles of real-world range.

It’s an exercise in extreme subtraction, and for a commercial robotaxi fleet, it translates to a structural superpower. Operating cost per mile is the lifeblood of ride-hailing economics. At the national average of $0.16 per kWh, the Cybercab costs approximately 2.6 cents per mile in energy. The Cybercab has a significant advantage over other efficient EVs; a standard Tesla Model 3 requires 3.8 cents, and rivals like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 push closer to 4.8 cents. Over a commercial fleet running hundreds of thousands of miles, those fractions of a penny dictate survival. Furthermore, the small battery pack directly enables the vehicle’s heavily marketed $30,000 price point by slashing base manufacturing costs and reducing turnaround times at the charging stall.

Next Steps for the Cybercab

Production is already spooling up at Gigafactory Texas following an initial ramp in April. However, the stark reality remains: a 165 Wh/mi rating is functionally useless if the vehicle cannot safely navigate itself. With the unsupervised driving program currently crashing at a documented rate higher than human drivers, Tesla’s engineering triumph is effectively parked. The Cybercab is an absolute masterclass in purpose-built efficiency. Now, Tesla just has to prove it can actually operate on public roads.

EV startup, Bollinger, is facing a court order that will officially put it out of business, possibly for good. The company’s assets will be auctioned off to cover its unpaid bills. Suppliers sued and won, so the court is now ordering the defunct EV company to sell its assets to pay what it owes.

Founded in Hobart, New York, in 2014, Bollinger Motors aimed to develop an electric off-road vehicle. Taking cues from classics, Bollinger’s first few efforts looked a lot like the classic Land Rover Defenders or vintage Ford Broncos. Fast forward to 2022, and Mullen Automotive bought a controlling stake in the company and redirected it away from consumer to commercial vehicles.

After a while, the company closed its doors by the end of November 2025. The date is now April 2026, and it appears that Bollinger’s current situation may see its doors closed permanently, with the company selling off its remaining assets to pay its suppliers, Crain’s Detroit reports.

Assets for Liabilities

Once a venture for electric off-roaders, now a commercial-vehicle brand headed to the auction block. According to the report, the assets and equipment under Bollinger will be sold off at an online auction. While it may not sound like a great deal to you and me, perhaps other businesses could find uses for the equipment, such as battery testing and validation systems, and vehicle lifts and tooling. There are also other assets that are up for grabs, probably office equipment, furnishings, and inventory parts and units that didn’t sell.

Apart from the assets, more than 20 units of the Bollinger B4 Class 4 electric truck will be made available. Whether or not it’s a good idea to purchase a car from a defunct company is up to the buyer’s discretion, but don’t let me stop you.

More Liabilities

Apart from not being able to pay its suppliers, Bollinger is also facing investigations by the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, following numerous complaints about unpaid wages and benefits to its employees.

Bollinger stated that it would invest $44 million in the Detroit auto industry and create 237 jobs. However, it appears that the promise will remain unfulfilled. Now, the Michigan Economic Development Corp. is seeking about $1,000,000 of the $3,000,000 grant disbursed to the company in 2023.

Bollinger to Bounce Back?

While Bollinger Motors may not bounce back from this, perhaps its founder and former CEO could make something of the situation. Robert Bollinger bought the intellectual property and prototypes of the original B1 and B2 models for less than $250,000. This was done after a receivership order from a judge in Ohio.

While we might not see his name on the masthead, a new brand may rise, based on the two electric off-roaders that Bollinger wanted to make in the first place. Although it might be a good idea not to use his last name on the next one.

Chameleon Carriers

The mechanism is straightforward. When a commercial carrier racks up a large number of safety violations, out-of-service orders, or crippling fines, the operators don’t pay up. Instead, they fold the company. Days later, the exact same trucks, drivers, and management apply for a new Department of Transportation (DOT) number. For roughly $1,000, they buy a clean slate. Repeat offenses aren’t a byproduct of the system; they are the underlying business model.

The sheer scale of “Semi-gate”, as I like to call it, was recently laid bare by CBS’s 60 Minutes. In an eight-month-long investigation, correspondent Bill Whitaker exposed Super Ego Holding, a sprawling transport network operating between the U.S. and Serbia. The investigation revealed an operation where overseas agents routinely hacked electronic logging devices, allowing drivers to push past legal exhaustion limits. When the regulatory heat turned up, whistleblowers testified that management ordered drivers to literally slap duct tape over old company logos to display newly minted DOT numbers. The barrier to entry for this game? An internet connection and a nominal registration fee, entirely avoiding meaningful safety audits.

Are American Motorists Safe?

For the American motorist, the repercussions are severe. The 60 Minutes episode referred to industry analytics firm Fusable’s research, which notes that these reincarnated fleets are four times more likely to trigger severe collisions than legitimate new operators. The numbers connected to the Super Ego network alone are chilling: nearly 15,000 safety violations and 500 crashes in just two years.

Federal Action

These figures have finally triggered federal action. Super Ego is now the subject of an active federal investigation, and lawmakers recently introduced the SAFE Act (H.R. 7539) to force the FMCSA to implement automated screening to block chameleon applicants at the door. Yet, Washington has known about this for over a decade. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) first flagged the chameleon carrier crisis in 2012, citing crash data stretching back to 2005. The root problem is simple math. The FMCSA employs roughly 350 investigators to police over 700,000 motor carriers. It takes months of legal maneuvering to shut down a dangerous fleet, but only a few weeks to register a new one online.

The freight industry runs on razor-thin margins. Until regulators mandate rigorous physical vetting over digital paperwork, bad actors will keep exploiting the system because it is cheaper to rebrand than to repair brakes and let drivers sleep.

For the everyday commuter, your best defense is distance. Maintain a wide berth around battered rigs, especially those sporting fresh, hastily applied DOT decals over older paint or duct-taped doors. The company name might only be a week old, but the heavy machinery—and the exhausted driver behind the wheel—could be harboring a long, dangerous, and unresolved past.

The U.S. got the Hiace briefly in the 1980s, only to have it discontinued a few years after its launch. Minivans simply outpaced demand for traditional ladder-frame vans, even though Toyota outsold other Japanese rivals in the segment.

Built on the bones of another legendary Toyota (also not found stateside), the Hilux, other parts of the world get to enjoy the robust reliability that the Toyota Hiace delivers. In parts of Europe and Asia, the Hiace is a household name, and it’s getting a major overhaul soon, Japan’s Response reports.

The new Hiace is known around the world as a commercial van, passenger van, and even as a luxury MPV – similar to yet another luxury minivan the U.S. doesn’t get, the Alphard. What we do get is the Toyota Sienna, which is a close-enough model for families looking for a minivan. The key difference is that the Hiace is body-on-frame, which makes it more robust than the Sienna.

New Design

Japanese sources are reporting new developments regarding the Hiace, including an expected redesign and overhaul of its platform. There are two series currently in service: the H200, with its mid-ship driver-on-top-of-the-engine layout, and the H300, the one with the nose. The new platform will be built on the H300.

The Hiace Concept, first unveiled at the 2025 Japan Mobility Show, features a newly developed platform, a futuristic exterior, and a short hood. Back in 2019, when the H300 series of Hiaces were released, the hood and the repositioning of the engine were done in the name of safety, NVH insulation, and driving stability at low and high speeds. Toyota will do the same for the new platform moving forward, with further improvements.

In Japan, the exterior design of the new Hiace will be slightly different. It’s said that the model’s nose will be shorter in its home country to create a familiar image for Japanese buyers. Furthermore, there will be a wide range of sizes available in the Hiace lineup, and we could still see cargo, passenger, touring, and luxury variants of the model making the rounds in several markets.

Hybrid Tech

In its current form, the Hiace came with either a four-cylinder gasoline engine with a 2.0 to 2.7-liter displacement or a 2.4 to 2.8-liter turbo-diesel option. Depending on the market, the Toyota outfit in that locale might favor gasoline or diesel more, and they have the option to go with either. However, for the new Hiace, sources indicate that we may see a 2.0- and 2.5-liter gasoline engine paired with an electric motor, making it a hybrid.

The powertrain will be similar to the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid, featuring a 2.5-liter four-cylinder hybrid that produces about 236 horsepower. Sources claim the new Hiace could produce up to about 220 horsepower.

All that means is more MPGs and better torque delivery. The question is, will the hybrid stack up? Given that diesel variants of the Hiace are preferred by many buyers, will the electric motors be able to keep up with this big van? We shall see soon, I hope.

Electrifying Engineering

The primary hurdle for EVs in the commercial sector has always been the brutal trade-off between energy density and weight. In the world of semi-trucks, every additional pound of battery traditionally meant a pound of lost payload. Volvo’s solution is a masterclass in smart packaging. By redesigning the rear electric axle into a more compact e-axle that integrates the motors and a six-speed transmission, engineers freed up enough chassis space to fit a massive 725 kWh battery pack.

Having a payload of up to 28 tonnes and a claimed range of up to 435 miles per charge, it’s a clear indication that electric trucks are no longer relegated to short-range last-mile deliveries. To make a 725 kWh battery usable for real-world trucking operations, charging speed is as critical as range. Volvo has equipped the FH Aero Electric to handle the Megawatt Charging System (MCS). Volvo claims the platform is capable of charging from 20 percent to 80 percent in approximately 50 minutes when connected to a 700kW charger. This timing is intentional, as it aligns almost perfectly with mandatory driver rest periods, effectively neutralizing the downtime argument that has long deterred long-haul carriers from switching away from diesel.

Positioning Against the Competition

While the standard Volvo FH Electric was already a leader in regional logistics, the “Aero” variant uses advanced aerodynamics to minimize drag and maximize efficiency at highway speeds, allowing the Volvo to target long-haul trucking competition like the Tesla Semi and Windrose Electric semi.

The entry of a legacy manufacturer into the 400-plus mile club changes the math for global fleets. Volvo brings an established global service network, proven parts availability, and decades of chassis durability data to the table—factors that are often just as important to fleet managers as the electric powertrain itself.

Heavy-Logistics EV Roadmap

While infrastructure seems to be the final hurdle, the hardware is now widely available. We are witnessing a transition where electric trucks are evolving from niche sustainability projects into viable, primary tools for international logistics – both battery electric, as well as hydrogen FCE (Fuel-Cell Electric).

The psychological barrier for many operators was the 400-mile mark. Now that Volvo has joined a growing club of manufacturers who have surpassed it, the industry focus will likely shift from “Can it do the job?” to “How fast can we build the chargers?” The potential fuel-cost savings of moving to EV trucking from diesel trucking will prove to be immensely attractive for profit-maximizing businesses.

A Simpler, More Useful Explorer EV

The new Explorer Van is essentially a two-seat version of the standard electric SUV, reworked for fleet use. The rear seats have been replaced with a flat load floor, while a full bulkhead separates the cabin from the cargo area, making it perfect for light-duty work. Because it features a partition behind the driver and no rear seats, it’s classified as a van in Europe. That’s also why it has the yellow lug nut indicators on its wheels.

The all-wheel-drive version produces 335 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque, while the rear-wheel-drive model can travel up to 374 miles on a single charge. Payload capacity tops out at 650 kg (1,433 lbs), and towing capability reaches up to 1,200 kg (2,646 lbs). The numbers aren’t meant to rival larger petrol-powered or hybrid vans, but they don’t need to.

The EV Americans Might Actually Want

While this model is designed for European fleets, it unintentionally hits a sweet spot for American buyers, assuming it regains rear seats. If this were to become a reality, the almost station-wagon-looking Explorer EV could do everything the Mustang Mach-E does, just better. The size and simplistic design are much closer to what US consumers typically prefer, especially given the mixed reception to the Mach-E. And best of all, no more blasphemed Mustang name.

The Possibility of It Coming To The States

Ford will introduce a new affordable four-door model in the States, rumored to be a sedan. As it stands, the Explorer Van is unlikely to make its way to the United States. It has been developed specifically around European regulations. Although America gets the gas-powered Explorer, the Explorer EV, and its van variant join the list of Euro-only Ford SUVs, including the Puma, Kuga, and Capri (you can keep that one). Not every buyer is looking for something flashy or overdesigned. Sometimes, a clean, practical EV with the right size and shape is exactly what’s missing.

Idea to Delivery

A stark comparison to Windrose is the Tesla Semi; first announced in 2017 with production said to begin in 2019 at a starting price of $150,000 for the low-range variant. However, 9 years after its announcement in 2017, aside from a few pilot trucks for Pepsico in 2022 and having missed earlier production deadlines, the Tesla Semi is finally set to enter production this year, with starting prices potentially exceeding $300,000. So, how did a competitor that began its existence five years after the announcement of the Tesla Semi all but match Tesla’s production and delivery timelines, while Tesla is neither able to meet its production deadlines nor pricing targets?

While Tesla is committed to building its Semi at its Nevada Gigafactory, Windrose chose a more conventional industry approach to manufacturing – with core components like the high-capacity, long-life LFP batteries being sourced from China’s incredibly well-developed EV industry, and final assembly taking place in Antwerp, Belgium. This approach to manufacturing, as well as their parallel certification strategy across continents (certifications which typically take manufacturers several years to procure), significantly accelerated Windrose’s time-to-market. Finally, Windrose developed its semi as an integration platform for existing technologies rather than designing and developing proprietary solutions, with partners such as Kempower, Greenlane, and Geotab, amongst others, providing software and charging infrastructure solutions.

Windrose Semi Specs

The Windrose semi aims to be the electric semi of choice for long-haul journeys; it costs about as much as Tesla’s Semi, and offers a claimed range of 420 miles, marginally lower than Tesla’s 500-mile claimed range, with a charging system that prioritizes compatibility. While its range is lower than Tesla’s, it is significantly higher than the class 8 semis currently offered by Peterbilt, Volvo, and BYD, all of which have claimed ranges of around 300 miles per charge, and focus on regional-haul trucking rather than long-haul trucking like the Tesla and Windrose.

If Windrose can beat Tesla’s Semi to the mass market, it could be considerably more difficult for Tesla to regain that lost market share after already having missed deadlines and pricing targets. With additional deliveries scheduled for later this year and an American assembly facility planned, Windrose is setting itself up to disrupt the long-haul trucking industry.

We’re saying that because the all-electric van is not exactly a Ford. While the US automaker already has a similarly sized van in Europe that also comes in an all-electric version—the E-Transit Custom—the Transit City is essentially a rebadged JMC Touring, a Chinese electric van built by Ford’s joint venture partner Jiangling Motors Corporation (JMC).

Made in China and Sold in Europe with an American Badge

The Ford Transit City is also built in China, at JMC’s plant in Nanchang. This has allowed Ford to offer an electric van at a much lower price than its existing E-Transit Custom, which starts at around €47,000 ($54,200) in Germany, including VAT.

In comparison, the Ford Transit City promises to be a much more affordable proposition. While the automaker hasn’t disclosed pricing yet, Autocar claims the Transit City will be positioned close to the starting price of Ford’s smallest electric van in Europe, the E-Transit Courier, which is priced from €34,800 ($40,100) in Germany.

In order to keep the price down, the Transit City is stripped to its essentials and offers no optional extras. Still, the standard equipment is decent and includes a 12.3-inch touchscreen, manual air conditioning, heated driver’s seat, a backup camera and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

Ford has borrowed not only the dedicated EV platform from JMC, but also the design, as the Transit City looks almost identical to the JMC Touring, with the only exceptions being the different headlights, front bumper and badging. Mind you, Ford says there are fundamental differences between the two models, including the battery and drive layout—the JMC van features a less powerful motor and slightly smaller battery.

Up to 158 Miles of Range, 2,392-Lb Payload

The Transit City features a front axle electric motor rated at 148 hp (110 kW), powered by a 56-kWh LFP battery, which is significantly smaller than the E-Transit Custom’s 71-kWh pack. Fitting a smaller battery results in a maximum payload of 2,811 pounds (1,275 kg) for the long-wheelbase model, while the short-wheelbase variant gets a 2,392-lb (1,085-kg) maximum. The cargo volume for the LWB model is approximately 8 cubic meters (282.5 cubic feet).

As its name suggests, the new battery electric van is designed especially for city use, as it has a driving range of up to 158 miles in the WLTP cycle in the most efficient short-wheelbase version. That makes the Transit City best suited as a last-mile delivery van for fleets. As for charging, it has a maximum charging speed of 87kW, which means it can add 31 miles of range in 10 minutes or go from 10 to 80 percent state-of-charge in 33 minutes.

Ford will offer the new electric van in three body types: a short-wheelbase, low-roof van (L1H1), a long-wheelbase, taller van (L2HD), and a chassis cab. The latter version marks Ford’s entry into the one-tonne chassis-cab segment, which means that factory-approved conversions should follow shortly.

Box van and dropside conversions have already been announced by Ford Pro partners including VFS, but other models, including a refrigerated body and a tipper variant, will follow early next year. Ford will start taking orders for the Transit City this month, with deliveries in Europe expected later in the year.

Around 13,000 immigrant truck drivers recently had their licenses revoked in California. The Federal Government forced the state to cancel the licenses of these truck drivers after barring the state’s DMV from fixing the situation.

Truck driver shortages could become a problem for the state in both the short and long terms. Now 13,000 drivers short, logistics in the state could take a hit. However, regulators are also pausing the state’s DMV from issuing new Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs), which could be a bigger problem in the future.

The Root of the Issue

It’s one problem on top of another between California and the Feds. Commercial truck drivers who are legally in the United States but not citizens or permanent residents are affected. These include individuals with visas, refugee or asylum status, and work permits who hold CDLs in California. Classified as non-domiciled commercial drivers, the root cause stems from the DMV’s mistakes when it issued CDLs with mismatched expiry dates relative to the individual’s legal stay in the U.S.

Instead of allowing the DMV to fix the issue, the Federal Government cancelled the licenses altogether. A total of around 13,000 drivers just lost their licenses, with no way to get them reissued for now because the Federal Government has paused the DMV’s ability to process new CDLs.

California Industry Will Take A Hit

Now, California is down by about 13,000 commercial drivers in the trucking sector. The industry is already strained, since California is one of the states that moves the most goods. The DMV is working to help get as many driver’s licenses back as soon as possible.

“This federal administration is using their war on immigration to remove qualified, hardworking, commercial drivers from our workforce,” said DMV Director Steve Gordon to NBC San Diego. The state’s government is pushing back on the decision. The shortage will affect a significant portion of California’s industry, as the trucking sector loses a large share of its workforce.

Currently, the California DMV is working to get these drivers back, but with the Federal Government putting a pause on license reissuance, truck drivers might have to prepare for a completely different long-haul. Still, the state’s DMV is working on a legal solution to alleviate the burden on the some 13,000 affected truck drivers.

Volkswagen is no stranger to the military sector, and the automaker is now exploring the possibility of producing military vehicles at its Osnabrück factory in Germany. According to Reuters, VW recently showcased two military vehicle concepts as it gauges interest from defense buyers that could help keep the plant operating.

The Osnabrück factory currently employs about 2,300 people and produces the T-Roc Cabriolet, a convertible subcompact crossover SUV that was never sold in the U.S., likely due to its niche appeal. However, the model is set to end production in 2027, forcing the company to find ways to keep the plant operating — especially after talks to sell the facility to Rheinmetall, a German defense contractor, fell through.

Military Concepts Take Shape

The two military concepts were showcased at the Enforce Tac security and defense trade fair in Germany. One of them is based on the Volkswagen Amarok, a midsize pickup truck underpinned by the same T6.2 platform as the Ford Ranger. Named MV.1, it wears an olive green paint scheme and features several modifications to improve its utilitarian capabilities.

Due to the 25-percent tariff on imported light trucks, known as the “Chicken Tax,” among other factors, bringing the Amarok to the U.S. would be challenging.

The other military concept — MV.2 — is based on the Volkswagen Crafter, a van larger than the ID. Buzz, making it better suited for transporting personnel. However, neither concept wore VW badges, instead carrying only the D.E.S. Defence script on their sides. Beyond their exterior appearance, they share little with their road-going production counterparts.

Volkswagen Searches for a Lifeline

Speaking about the exploration into military applications, a spokesperson said, “In recent months, the Volkswagen plant in Osnabrück has developed various vehicle concepts and presented them at Enforce Tac to explore potential market opportunities and prospects.” The spokesperson added that the project’s future “remains to be seen.”

If this venture materializes, it could also draw attention to Volkswagen’s history of producing military vehicles. One of its most notable military vehicles was the Kübelwagen, essentially the German equivalent of the Willys Jeep. The vehicle was based on the Volkswagen Type 1 architecture, sharing many mechanical components with the now-discontinued Beetle, allowing engineers to create a light utility vehicle without an entirely new design.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

So far, though, its remit has been largely urban deliveries over relatively concentrated, thanks to two-wheel drive and fairly modest ranges. That’s soon going to change, though, as Rivian has confirmed in in its latest letter to shareholders it’s launching bigger-batteried and all-wheel drive versions of the EDV that’ll allow it to travel further and go to more remote places.

The EDV’s Limitations

Launched in 2021, the EDV currently only comes in front-wheel drive form, with a 320 HP motor driving the front wheels. The 100kWh battery pack allows for a quoted range of 161 miles in the smaller 500 variant, and 160 in the larger 700.

Those numbers are fine for the sort of urban, high-density mileage the EDV has been used for so far, but limit its usefulness in less built-up areas. Meanwhile, being front-wheel drive only means that winter weather and unpaved roads can cause a problem for it too.

The Next Step

Those two major limitations are what the new variants of the van are being specifically developed to overcome. Rivian says it’s working on a larger battery that’ll bring a 30% increase in range, potentially bumping it up to 209 miles.

Combined with a new all-wheel drive version, which will most likely add a second motor on the rear axle, Rivian says the new vans will “expand EDV route coverage in Amazon’s network.” It sounds like the new versions are once again being developed specifically for Amazon, then, as the e-commerce giant looks to further increase its fleet of zero-emission delivery vehicles.

A Busy Year Ahead

Rivian hasn’t said when we’ll see the updated EDV, but we expect to hear more during 2026, which looks set to be a busy year for the California-based company. Pre-production validation builds of the R2, its smaller and more affordable electric SUV, began in January at its plant in Normal, Illinois, and it says that customer deliveries are on track to begin in the second quarter of the year.

The R2 will also be the first model to get new tech being worked on by the company, including its third-gen hands-off driver assist system and new super-fast RAP1 processor, both of which will come to the new mid-size SUV in late 2026.

Kuniskis Let The Cat Out Of The Bag

During an exclusive interview with Mopar Insiders at the 2026 Detroit Auto Show, Kuniskis outlined Ram’s renewed commitment to commercial vehicles. With increased light-duty truck production capacity and greater flexibility in powertrain supply, Ram is once again expanding its focus beyond pickups. “And one of the things we’re going to do is ProMaster City,” Kuniskis said. “I don’t know if we said it publicly, but yeah, we’re bringing back ProMaster City.” Kuniskis never mentioned when it’ll return, but the ProMaster City is officially part of Ram’s exciting future plans, which include the return of the HEMI V8 and a rival to the Ford Maverick.

Does an EV ProMaster City Make Sense?

Yes and no. EV demand in the US is declining fast. So much so that Stellantis killed off the all-electric Ram 1500 due to a lack of interest. With that in mind, an all-electric compact van doesn’t make sense. But a gasoline, hybrid, or even an EREV does, especially considering the range anxiety many small business owners and delivery drivers will face everyday. So, if you want the efficiency of electrification, without the limited range, an EREV ProMaster City hits the sweet spot. However, this is all speculation. Ram is yet to confirm what powertrain the upcoming Promaster City will utilize.

A Gap In The Market

The compact van space remains underserved. Full-size vans like the Ford Transit, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, and Ram ProMaster are often overkill, and the Transit Connect has exited the market, making the need for a compact van even greater. The ProMaster City doesn’t even need to dominate; it just needs to exist. Its return fits alongside a three-row Ram SUV due in 2028 and makes Ram’s future strategy clear: Balance innovation with demand. Timing remains the final piece of the puzzle.

It’s no secret that automakers still pump out pretty old cars in this day and age. One prime example of that is the Chevrolet Express. Introduced in 1996, the van turns 30 in 2026, and is just a few years away from matching the almighty Ford Panther platform that underpinned the Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car. But even then, that van beats all those as it’s been that way for an entire generation.

But we digress, as GM is far from being the only one that’s been selling something old as brand-spanking new. The world’s biggest automaker, Toyota, has several cars that fit the bill. We’re talking single-generation cars that still have roots well planted from decades prior, here. With that, here are five of them.

Lexus IS (Since 2013)

Yes, we just had to throw in a Lexus product here. The current Lexus IS might look miles different from the one released back in 2013, but it still rides on the same chassis as it did 13 years ago.

It’s easily the oldest car in the company’s lineup with no successor seemingly in place. It’s been facelifted three times already, with a radical update for the 2021 model year. The 2026 version also gets a few tweaks here and there, taking some cues from the redesigned ES.

Toyota Yaris Sedan/Vios (Since 2013)

If you frequently travel to Southeast Asia, the Yaris Sedan and the Vios should be a familiar sight. It’s Toyota’s entry in the subcompact sedan class, a hugely popular segment in the region but now officially extinct in America.

An all-new model was introduced in 2022, but Toyota still sells the previous generation in huge numbers across the region. Like the IS, it’s been around for 13 years and has undergone several facelifts.

Toyota LiteAce (Since 2007)

Moving to commercial vehicles, what we have next is the Toyota LiteAce. Also known as the Daihatsu GranMax, it’s primarily for small businesses and probably one of the smallest vans you can still get apart from kei vans. This one’s old enough to go to college, as it was launched 19 years ago.

This one hasn’t had a major facelift throughout its life, either, and it doesn’t seem it’ll ever get one, given its utilitarian purpose. The Toyota version isn’t sold in Japan anymore, but is still around in most parts of Asia.

Toyota Hiace (Since 2004)

If you think the LiteAce is old, then meet its bigger brother, the Hiace. Mind you, we have to be specific and mention the flat-nose version. A thoroughly redesigned model was rolled out in 2019, moving its engine to the front so the driver’s knees don’t become part of the crumple zone.

Still, this literal box on wheels is a massively popular delivery vehicle in Japan, and it even has loads of user-choosers out there, too. Facelifts have been largely tweaks to the front bumper and headlights, and its most recent one, quite literally, just came out. It now sports LED daytime running lights. Wow.

Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Series (Since 1984)

You totally saw this from a mile away. The daddy of all brand-new old-school Toyotas is still, of course, the Land Cruiser 70 Series. Launched in 1984, it was intended to replace the 40 Series and to continue the heavy-duty, utilitarian branch of the Land Cruiser family tree. The 40 Series lived on until 2001, although it and the 70 Series were being made at the same time for 17 years.

To give you a better idea of the 70 Series’ longevity, it’s already outlasted the 40 Series in terms of production years. Its predecessor ran from 1960 to 2001 for 41 years, but the 70 Series? It’s turning 42 in 2026, and it last got an update in 2023. It looks like there are no signs of it being discontinued, either, as demand remains strong, particularly in Oceania and the Middle East.

Far From the Oldest

The Land Cruiser 70’s 42-year (and counting) run sounds impressive, but those are rookie numbers to a couple more models worth mentioning. For true automotive fossils, you have to take a look at what’s still available brand-new over in Russia.

There’s the Lada Niva that came out in 1977, so it’s close to reaching its golden anniversary. Then there’s the even-older UAZ-469 from 1971, so that one turns 55 this year. But at the top of the pile is another model from UAZ with the 452. This one dates back to the Johnson Administration, as it was launched in 1965. Yes, a car (okay, van) born in the mid-’60s is still alive and kicking with just a few tweaks since the original.

View the 15 images of this gallery on the original article

10-Year Warranty Available Across the Lineup, Besides EVs

The warranty covers 2026 model-year Ram 1500 pickups, 2500, 3500, and Chassis Cab 3500/4500/5500 trucks (including the sub-TRX RHO and the Power Wagon), as well as ProMaster vans. Fully electric vehicles (i.e., the ProMaster EV) are excluded. The limited powertrain warranty covers the engine, transmission, transfer case, driveshafts, differentials, and axles, and is available on both outright purchases and leases to individuals and businesses, excluding fleet purchases. The warranty’s only major caveat is that it’s only valid for the original buyer, so one can’t purchase a used 2026 Ram 1500 and expect the same support.

Related: Ram Is Exploring a Smarter Way to Make Pickup Trucks More Aerodynamic

But that won’t affect most buyers. According to Stellantis, “nearly 80% of new truck loans now exceed five years.” The move to offer such a long warranty period will be welcomed by such individuals (unless they exceed the mileage limit first, of course), particularly those who come from competitor brands. Case in point: the Ford F-150’s powertrain warranty only provides five years or 60,000 miles of coverage, and the Chevrolet Silverado 1500’s warranty is the same.

More Reasons to Celebrate in 2026

The supercharged TRX mentioned at the outset isn’t the only V8-powered Ram pickup making a comeback in 2026. Around the middle of last year, Stellantis announced that the HEMI V8 would return to the 2026 Ram 1500, with 395 horsepower and 410 lb-ft of torque. Although the Hurricane twin-turbo straight-six version of the pickup recently proved far more capable than the HEMI in comparative testing, the V8 is what buyers want, and as the Dodge Charger Daytona’s horrendous sales figures show, it’s better to give customers something dated and full of character than something innovative and alien. Thankfully, it seems that Stellantis is eager to rectify that mistake, too, and we expect a V8 Charger to be confirmed sometime before 2026 comes to an end.

Ready-to-Haul Setup

This Silverado 4500HD Crew Cab is based on a dually chassis-cab platform and comes fitted with a Hillsboro Industries hybrid steel and aluminum flatbed. The setup includes diamond-plate surfaces, tie-down rails, a headache rack, aluminum side boxes, and a receiver hitch. There’s also an RDS aluminum fuel transfer tank with a Fill-Rite 12-volt pump and nozzle, turning it into a genuinely self-sufficient work rig. Power comes from GM’s 6.6-liter Duramax turbodiesel V8, rated at 350 hp and 750 lb-ft of torque, paired with an Allison six-speed automatic transmission. A dual-range transfer case, locking rear differential, and factory exhaust brake round out the drivetrain. In proper configuration, the Silverado 4500HD is rated to tow up to 37,000 pounds – more than triple that of a Ford F-150 Lariat Powerboost.

A Familiar Silverado Cabin, by Design

Despite being a 2024 model, the Silverado 4500HD shares much of its interior design with the decade-old Silverado. While that may raise eyebrows for some, buyers shopping in this segment often prefer proven, simpler tech that’s easier to live with and easier to fix. This example still offers plenty of comfort, with black Katzkin leather upholstery, heated and power-adjustable front seats, red seat belts, air conditioning, and some tech like cruise control and an 8-inch touchscreen with Bluetooth connectivity.

A Rare Kind of Listing on Bring a Trailer

At the time of writing, bidding sits at $54,500. While the original window sticker isn’t included, the 2024 Silverado 4500HD carried a starting MSRP of $59,535 before factoring in the flatbed, fuel system, and other upgrades. Given its low mileage and fully-built setup, this is a rare case of a heavy-duty truck that’s practical, fairly priced, and ready to work the moment the auction ends.

Money’s scarce, and times are tough. If only cars weren’t so damned expensive. Alas, this seems to be the world we live in these days, but recent news suggests things might not stay this way for much longer. No, no, our cars aren’t going to get any cheaper; don’t be ridiculous. According to the Trump administration, though, they might just get smaller instead. That’s right, no longer will buyers with tight budgets be forced to shell out exorbitant sums for four-wheel-drive, off-road-ready SUVs that nobody really needs. Instead, they’ll be able to save a few bucks—just a few bucks—and buy themselves the vehicular equivalent of a ping pong ball.

Collision-safety concerns tossed to the wind, President Donald J. Trump has fallen madly in love with Japan’s cute little kei cars—cars produced to fit within specific small dimensions, with engines up to just 660cc, to qualify for reduced fees and taxes passed down to buyers. He sees these cars as a potential solution to the “pricey car crisis,” which wasn’t at all caused by automakers realizing that crossovers and SUVs were quickly becoming their top-volume sellers, despite also being margin-rich moneymakers, and that producing cheap small cars was simply no longer worth their time.

As a selfish and indulgent automotive enthusiast, I am admittedly somewhat giddy at the prospect of brand-new kei cars being produced and sold in America, regardless of how ridiculous the idea may be in practice. After all, kei cars are some of the most fun slow cars to drive fast because most of them are incredibly lightweight. They’re also extremely quirky—they’re brilliant examples of engineering and packaging excellence—and they sip fuel like it’s 30-year-old scotch—slowly, and with great care. So, in my excitement over the thought of seeing the world’s latest and greatest kei cars coming to America, I decided to put together a list of what I believe are the top 5 brand-new kei cars on sale in Japan today that could potentially succeed in the U.S. market. Here is that list:

1. Nissan Sakura: The Perfect Urban Commuter EV

The only fully electric vehicle on this list, the Nissan Sakura, offers up to 112 miles of range on a single charge. With a 20kWh laminated lithium-ion battery, the Nissan Sakura’s powertrain provides just 63 ponies, but it’s enough for this tiny EV to achieve a top speed of 80 miles per hour; more than enough for city commutes and the occasional freeway jaunt. Admittedly, the Sakura isn’t exactly inexpensive for what it is. In Japan, the electric kei car starts at USD 27,800, or just shy of what the 2026 Nissan LEAF goes for here in North America, which offers far superior range and power.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Still, Japan has fallen in love with the Nissan Sakura. The Sakura was awarded Japanese Car of the Year for 2022-2023, also winning Kei Car of the Year. In 2023, it won the RJC Car of the Year and RJC Technology of the Year awards. And in 2022-2023, the Japan Automotive Hall of Fame (JAHFA) named it its Car of the Year. No matter how you feel about EVs, there’s no denying that the Nissan Sakura is a thing of absolute automotive engineering genius, and I believe Americans deserve the chance to benefit from Nissan’s brilliant global innovations for themselves in this bite-sized EV package.

If Nissan can get the price down, perhaps by producing the Sakura on American soil, it could make a compelling sub-$25k EV for buyers who take their dieting and cardiovascular exercise very seriously and don’t need a whole lot of space. The Sakura could be a brilliant commuter car for people who live in dense city centers and don’t often leave town by car. Plus, there’s certainly an appeal here for fleet use. I can imagine the Sakura making an excellent choice for college campus security services, parking and bylaw enforcement, and much more.

2. Mazda Flair Crossover Hybrid: A Mini Off-Roader Americans Would Love

Americans love their crossovers, and hybrid crossovers seem to be the next big thing in the ‘States. But who says they all need to be massive? Mazda has the perfect thing for those looking for a tiny off-roader with tiny fuel usage for tiny money. In Japan, Mazda sells the Flair Crossover Hybrid for just $16,500 with standard front-wheel drive, or $18,500 with four-wheel drive. Thanks to its tiny 660cc hybrid engine, this tiny off-roader boasts stellar fuel efficiency, typically achieving around 56-59 miles per gallon.

Plus, Mazda offers a whole slew of funky color options for the Mazda Flair Crossover Hybrid, which could add an exciting new color palette to American roads and trails should Mazda decide to offer the model stateside. With seating for up to five people, the Flair Crossover could be the perfect affordable do-it-all vehicle; ideal for city commuting and perfectly capable of tackling harsher terrain and groomed forest trails.

3. Mitsubishi Delica Mini: A Practical Kei Van for Families & Creators

Available with two- or four-wheel drive and turbocharged or naturally aspirated powertrains, the Mitsubishi Delica Mini is an incredibly versatile mini-minivan perfect for singles or couples who insist on inner-city convenience but also like to go camping on the weekends. Throw a rooftop tent on one of these or simply fold all four of its seats down flat to create a bed; it’s the perfect tiny rig for campers who know how to pack light. Alternatively, the Delica Mini could make for a fantastic camera car, what with its sliding rear doors and its boxy, spacious design.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

In Japan, the Delica Mini starts at just USD 21,800 and climbs up to USD 25,800 for turbocharged 4WD models. And, like the Mazda Flair Crossover, the Delica Mini is available in a whole suite of funky colors, including Ash Green Metallic (as shown above), Mist Blue Pearl, Natural Ivory Metallic, Lightning Blue Mica, and Sunshine Orange Metallic. As van culture soars in the United States, tiny and affordable options like the Delica Mini could present buyers with compelling new options—so long as they’re willing to sacrifice on space.

4. Honda N One: A Kei Commuter With Hot-Hatch Attitude

Quite possibly my favorite entry in this list, the Honda N One is the tiny hatchback that truly nerdy car enthusiasts and frugal-minded economy car buyers can both love equally as passionately. Powered by a 57-horsepower 660cc three-cylinder engine, the standard Honda N One can be fitted with either front- or all-wheel drive, a continuously variable automatic transmission, and starts at only USD 18,800 in Japan. Although that’s a compelling package as it is, considering it only weighs as little as 1,852 lbs, Honda’s got an even greater trick up its sleeve with the N One.

That trick is none other than the Honda N One RS, which adds a turbocharger and a six-speed manual gearbox to the tiny hatchback. With 63 horsepower on tap and a curb weight of just 2,006 lbs, the Honda N One RS might just be one of the most fun-to-drive new cars in America should it ever become available stateside. These are so much fun that they’ve even been introduced recently into the Gran Turismo franchise, with their very own dedicated spec racing events. If Honda ever decided to sell the N One RS in North America, my name would undoubtedly be first on its order list.

5. Subaru Sambar: An Affordable Utility Vehicle For Contractors & Tradesmen

The Subaru Sambar is perhaps one of the most iconic kei cars of all time. Known for its extreme versatility—being capable of rugged adventure as a four-wheel drive recreational camper van just as able as it can handle dump truck, delivery van, tow truck, and hot dog cart duties—many Subaru Sambars have already made their way to American shores, but only once they’ve reached the necessary 25 years of age to be considered legal for import. With the proposed allowance for new kei cars to be produced and sold in America, this could open the door for Subaru to offer kei car buyers the trucks and vans they’ve already been seeking out across the Pacific for years, fresh off the showroom floor.

Of course, driving around in a tiny, 25-year-old kei truck on American highways flooded with Chevy Tahoes and Ford F-150s isn’t necessarily the safest way of going about one’s business. Kei trucks, in general, due to their limited size, are not exactly where you’d want to find yourself face-to-face with a tractor-trailer doing ten over the speed limit. Still, granting American buyers access to the very same trucks they know and love, albeit built to satisfy modern safety standards and far more stringent regulations, is, at the very least, a welcome form of harm reduction when it comes to microcar accident safety. Plus, these make excellent farm trucks, tiny plumbers’ vans in small towns, and even cute little ice cream trucks that can set up shop in a public park without hurting anyone’s feelings.

The Obligatory Honorable Mention: Suzuki Jimny

To anyone with a keen sense of today’s automotive marketplace, offering the Suzuki Jimny in the United States once kei cars become federally legalized seems like a complete no-brainer. It’s like a bite-sized Jeep Wrangler, or Toyota Land Cruiser, rather. Plus, federalizing the Jimny wouldn’t require American buyers to settle for a measly 660cc engine, as the SUV was also engineered to accomodate a 101-horsepower 1.5-liter engine—still a far cry from what we might call “muscular,” but an improvement nonetheless considering it’ll need to be used on large American freeways, rather than just for booting around town and up small embankments in local forests.

The unfortunate truth is, no matter how well the Suzuki Jimny might perform in the U.S. market, should it ever be introduced, it’s not realistic that we’ll ever see it come here. At least, not branded as a Suzuki. Although Suzuki models were prevalent in the American marketplace throughout the 1990s and the 2000s, the automaker pulled out of the American market in 2012, meaning that, for the Suzuki Jimny to be sold in America as is, the brand would have to entirely reestablish its dealership network—a massive hassle for an automaker that intends to offer just one single niche model. So, unfortunately, we’ll probably never see the Suzuki Jimny sold new in the United States. Still, maybe we could see it sold as a Toyota, which entered into an official partnership with Suzuki in 2017 to assist each other with research & development and market expansion.

Final Thoughts: Can Kei Cars Really Succeed in America?

Although the kei cars mentioned above represent some of the finest bite-sized Japanese offerings of our current calendar year, their actual sales feasibility in the United States remains a bit of a mystery. Yes, people have been begging for the return of small, affordable cars for ages now. However, the reality is that automakers simply don’t make large enough margins on small cars to justify offering them anymore, especially because those products don’t make up for that lack of margin with sales volume. Nowadays, crossovers and SUVs are the volume sellers, and they’re also margin-heavy moneymakers.

If automakers like Toyota and Honda can no longer justify selling the Yaris and the Fit in America, I find it hard to believe that even smaller, cheaper cars present a stronger business case. Still, I’d love to see these automakers find a way. Perhaps with the proper federal incentives, we’ll see an influx of American-made kei cars, and maybe they’ll even be tailored for our market. I guess we’ll have to wait and see…

The Lawsuit and Models Affected

The case, titled Burgos, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., merges three class actions filed after federal regulators opened an investigation into steering issues on 2022–2024 Honda Civics – including Si and Type R models – along with 2023-2024 Honda CR-Vs, HR-Vs, and Acura Integras. Plaintiffs claim the affected vehicles can experience momentary binding or heaviness in the steering, creating a safety risk. They also argue Honda knew about the defect before the cars were sold. While the 2024 recall covered roughly 1.7 million vehicles, owners involved in the lawsuit say the fix doesn’t fully address the underlying problem.

What the NHTSA Found

The NHTSA began investigating in March 2023 after reports of “sticky steering” on 2022 and 2023 Civics. Its October 2024 Safety Recall Report detailed the root cause, citing improperly produced worm wheel components inside the steering gearbox. According to the report, the worm wheel can swell due to heat and moisture, reducing the grease film between moving parts, while an overly high spring preload on the worm gear increases sliding force. Combined, these issues raise friction and create the sticky or disconnected sensation that drivers described. The report also notes that the first confirmed complaint appeared in September 2021. If you’re a concerned owner, pay attention to early warning signs like abnormal noise and momentary hesitation when turning the wheel. These findings led Honda to initiate the recall that federal regulators considered sufficient to close the investigation in early 2025.

What Happens Next

Even with the investigation wrapped up, the lawsuit is far from over. Judge André Birotte Jr. has set new deadlines running through 2026 as both sides prepare additional filings before any hearing takes place. Honda maintains that the 2024 repair resolves the defect, but plaintiffs disagree, keeping the case active for the foreseeable future. For now, sticky steering remains a lingering issue Honda would probably prefer to leave in the past.

Toyota’s Japan Mobility Display this year was packed with attention-grabbing models. The new Century SUV arrived to challenge Bentley and Rolls-Royce, and the Land Cruiser FJ drew crowds with its bare-bones charm. Those were just two of many, but tucked away among these headline-makers was something more familiar – the Toyota Hiace Concept.

The humble workhorse van, sold across much of the world but not in the US, has been given a surprisingly sleek overhaul. It hasn’t been long since Toyota last updated the Ford Transit-rivaling workhorse, but this concept is a hint of something much bigger that’s about to arrive in the foreseeable future. The new design shows a van ready for the future of mobility – one that can serve businesses and families alike, without losing its utilitarian appeal.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

The Hiace Concept: Familiar Shape, Fresh Face

The Hiace Concept keeps its boxy silhouette that has defined the model for decades, but dresses it up with smooth, modern details. Its front end is strikingly futuristic, with L-shaped LED illumination framing a lighted Toyota emblem. The large bumper features a geometric pattern that subtly recalls Hyundai’s pixel-inspired Staria design, another stylish people-mover in this segment.

From the side, the Hiace adopts a new look that’s less industrial and more refined. The side windows are narrow and positioned higher, which means more privacy (though a bit questionable visibility). They appear to wrap around the rear glass, creating a seamless, wraparound effect. Around the back, horizontal tail lamps accentuate the van’s width and modern stance.

Inside, Toyota has gone for a clean, tech-forward layout. The panoramic display stretches across the dashboard, while physical controls remain where they’re needed most. The gear selector and steering wheel are both streamlined but practical – typical Toyota design thinking, just executed with more polish than usual. Plus, it’s PWD-ready, which expands the van’s utility and appeal.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Powertrain and What’s Next

Toyota hasn’t revealed any drivetrain specifications for the Hiace Concept yet, though electrification, like the Kia PV5, seems inevitable. The company has been progressively introducing hybrid and EV versions across its commercial and passenger lineups, and this van looks like it’s ready to join that direction.

Whether this concept becomes a global production model or stays regional remains to be seen. But in the metal, the Hiace Concept feels like a glimpse of Toyota’s next-generation workhorse – one that trades bare utility for smart design and quiet confidence.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Record setter in real-world conditions

The record attempt was run just north of Frankfurt, on a 36.2 mile loop that included towns, stop signs, elevation changes, roundabouts, traffic lights, and the regular vehicular movement that you would expect to encounter on public roads. Kia deliberately conducted this test on public roads, rather than on a closed track, to simulate the real-world conditions that the van would be used in during delivery and logistics work. 

Over the course of more than 22 hours, the PV5 completed almost 12 full laps of the assigned loop, covering 430.84 miles before finally running out of juice. It should also be noted that the van was loaded up to its maximum rated payload of 1,466 lbs, making this feat even more impressive. The range test was verified by a Guinness World Records adjudicator on scene, and the battery and cargo compartments were sealed at the start of the attempt to ensure authenticity. 

Kia nearly doubles the PV5’s claimed range

The Kia PV5 has a Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) range rating of 258 miles. WLTP ratings are usually considered extremely optimistic, however, Kia were able to exceed this by almost 200 miles. This distance was achieved thanks to the PV5’s efficient drivetrain, optimised aerodynamics, and three levels of regenerative braking, combined with economical driving practices to squeeze the most out of each kilowatt-hour. The drivers, commercial vehicle journalist George Barrow and senior Hyundai engineer Christopher Nigemeier, did their best to maintain steady speeds with gentle use of the accelerator and brake over the 22 hours that it took to cover this distance. 

Haul of fame: Kia proves it can go the distance

The PV5 is the first model in Kia’s Platform Beyond Vehicle (PBV) line-up, built on the Korean brand’s Electric-Global Modular Platform for Service (E-GMP.S) architecture. E-GMP.S brings with it the flexibility to accommodate a variety of platforms to suit a wide range of commercial as well as personal applications. These include Cargo, Passenger, Chassis Cab, and Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle layouts.

The PV5 Cargo used for this record is available in Medium Range (51.5 kWh) and Long Range (71.2 kWh) variants, offers up to 155.4 cubic feet of usable cargo space, and a payload capacity of up to 1,741 lbs. Kia also claim that the PV5 loses just 1.5 percent of range for every extra 220 lbs carried, a remarkable stat for a commercial EV. Plans for the future include adding more electric vans to Kia’s eLCV line-up, with a larger PV7 expected in 2027, and an even bigger PV9 by the end of the decade. 

I’ve driven a few Mercedes-Benz eSprinter vans before, but this was the first time I used one as both a hauler and a commuter. It was eye-opening, to say the least. Even though the platform and most of the body are shared with the internal-combustion Sprinter, the eSprinter manages to feel distinct, and not just because it’s electric. Its driving character gives it its own identity.

As a potential delivery vehicle, the benefits of electrification are ever-present. It’s quiet, efficient, remarkably easy to drive, and far less expensive to maintain than its gas or diesel counterparts. For fleets and small business owners, there’s a lot to like about the eSprinter’s potential. On the flip side, it’s not ideal for long-haul use. The 200-mile range on my tester is impressive for such a bulky van (it weighs just under 6,800 pounds), but for drivers covering long routes, the downtime for charging could be hard to justify.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

What do you get in a Mercedes-Benz eSprinter?

The Mercedes-Benz eSprinter comes in two power levels and three body configurations: a standard 144-inch wheelbase, a high-roof version, and a 170-inch wheelbase high-roof model. My tester was the largest of the bunch, the 170-inch high-roof, and despite its size, it was remarkably easy to drive. Power comes from a 134- or 201-horsepower electric motor, with rear-wheel drive and a single-speed automatic transmission. Two LFP battery packs are available: an optional 81-kWh pack or the standard 113-kWh pack. Charging takes about 10–12 hours on Level 2 or as little as 42 minutes to reach 80 percent on a DC fast charger. While it hasn’t yet adopted the NACS (Tesla) connector in the U.S., adapters are available.

Cargo space is generous, up to 488 cubic feet, with a maximum payload of 2,624 pounds (3,120 pounds in the larger version). The van’s GVWR is 9,370 pounds, and it can tow up to 4,277 pounds when properly equipped, which is less than the diesel Sprinter, but still useful for light commercial needs.

Commuting in the eSprinter

Modern full-size vans are easier to drive than ever, and the eSprinter is no exception. Forward visibility is excellent, and the short front deck makes maneuvering easier than you’d expect. It also comes with sharp parking cameras, which take the anxiety out of tight spaces. Still, patience is required, as corners need to be squared off carefully to avoid clipping curbs.

Even so, this is one of the easiest large vans I’ve driven in traffic. Acceleration is snappy enough to keep up, or even pass, most vehicles, yet smooth and predictable. It’s whisper-quiet, which makes daily driving less fatiguing and creates a serene environment for long shifts or background music. For hard-working drivers, that calm matters.

The seats are comfortable and supportive. Finding a comfortable seating position was fairly easy, and the controls are mostly intuitive. The eSprinter comes standard with a 10.25-inch touchscreen for its MBUX multimedia system, which works fairly well. I do wish some of the buttons were easier to see, and the volume control roller could be improved. Additionally, the steering wheel controls suffer from a lack of individual buttons, and they’re covered with touchpads. Not ideal either.

The steering is light, and the van feels stable and composed, loaded or unloaded. Ride quality is equally as comfortable for a work van. When I hauled about 1,000 pounds, the only noticeable difference was a slight drop in range of roughly 5 percent over an approximate 100-mile loop. That’s a solid result for an electric hauler.

Final thoughts

My tester, the 170-inch high-roof model, carries a base MSRP of $71,390, and that’s before options. That’s a lot of van for the money, and I can easily see several independent contractors or small fleet operators choosing the eSprinter over an electric pickup or other vans in this class.

With Chevrolet discontinuing the BrightDrop, the eSprinter now stands out even more among commercial EVs. Beyond work duty, I see real potential as an electric RV platform, given how spacious, quiet, and efficient it is. For those who stay mostly local, the Mercedes-Benz eSprinter is a compelling tool: modern, comfortable, and tailor-made for the electric era of hard work.

In a new announcement, ridesharing giant Lyft has partnered with the Silicon Valley-based autonomous vehicle company Tensor, launching what could be the most ambitious robotaxi program yet. What makes it different this time around is that not only will regular, everyday people be able to hail rides piloted by driverless vehicles, but the public will also be able to own the very autonomous cars that’ll be doing the driving. Lyft and Tensor’s strategic partnership will make Tensor’s Robocar the first personally-owned autonomous vehicle to be “Lyft-ready” directly from the manufacturer.

In short, you could buy an autonomous car that’ll not only be able to shuttle you, your family, and your friends around on your day-to-day activities, but you’ll be able to put it to work as a hailable Lyft vehicle and earn money for you during extended periods of time when you’re not in it.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

“Lyft has created opportunities for millions of people to earn on the platform, but right now, one of the last barriers to rideshare is time — you have to physically be in your vehicle to give rides and earn,” said Jeremy Bird, Executive Vice President of Driver Experience at Lyft. “What’s exciting about Tensor is they’re advancing the opportunity that Lyft already creates, removing that final obstacle while reinforcing our vision of a hybrid transportation future.”

Bird added that future owners will be able to start earning on the Lyft network the moment their vehicle rolls off the lot, while riders get access to some of the most advanced and luxurious autonomous cars to hit the road; something he sees as “the kind of innovation that expands what’s possible in transportation.”

A page out of Tesla’s playbook

With the Robotaxi network, your Tesla will be able to earn money while you’re not using it, essentially paying for itself

It will go to work, just like you

— Tesla (@Tesla) May 13, 2025

This sort of vision is similar in essence to what Tesla has imagined for its own robotaxi fleet. In multiple instances, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Tesla owners would be able to send cars out to be used as part of Tesla’s autonomous ride-hailing service when they’re at home, at work, or otherwise not using their cars, essentially promising a form of passive income. 

“It will be a very big deal when people can release their car to the fleet and have it earn money for them,” Musk said during Tesla’s Q2 2025 earnings call in July. “It’s just like if you have an Airbnb and you can rent out your home when you’re not there.”

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

The Tensor Robocar is loaded with cool tech

Lyft’s partner, Tensor, which was founded in Silicon Valley in 2016, has distinguished itself as the first company to develop a Level 4 AV designed for personal ownership. Its product has been developed over the course of nine years, during which the company earned California’s second-ever driverless testing permit for passenger vehicles. 

The actual technology powering these vehicles is truly impressive, as it’s basically a supercomputer on wheels. The Tensor Robocar is powered by NVIDIA chips, which enable the vehicle’s sophisticated onboard AI and safety approach through high-redundant systems, as well as large-scale training and simulation. 

The cars are also packed with over 100 cutting-edge sensors, including 37 cameras, 5 LiDAR sensors, and 11 radar sensors, which take in and process over 53 gigabits of sensor data per second —roughly 1,000 times faster than a typical home internet setup.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Tensor & Lyft say their Robocars will help you ‘Own Your Autonomy’

Lyft isn’t just facilitating individual ownership; it has also reserved hundreds of Tensor Robocars through its affiliates for its own fleet operations. With this dual strategy, the ridesharing network is enabling entrepreneurs to create their own fleets on Lyft’s network while simultaneously building the company’s own autonomous fleets.

With this model, Tensor is flipping the meaning of car ownership, as people’s luxury vehicles can become productive assets that earn money around the clock, rather than lose value sitting idle in a driveway or parking lot. Lyft even plans to offer support through its fleet management subsidiary to help keep vehicles clean, charged, and maintained.

“Through our upcoming partnership with Lyft, we’re taking a bold step forward — expanding our premium autonomous experience to a wider audience of Lyft passengers and enabling you to make your car work for you,” said Hugo Fozzati, Chief Business Officer at Tensor. “By allowing your Tensor to operate as a vehicle on the Lyft platform when you’re not using it, you can effortlessly generate revenue. This marks a new chapter in luxury autonomous mobility — placing control in your hands and redefining the future of autonomous travel.”

Final thoughts

Over the next few years, Tensor Robocars will roll out with level 4 autonomous driving capabilities across major cities in major markets, including Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Tensor says that the Robocars are scheduled for delivery by the end of 2026, with Lyft preparing to launch the first “Lyft-ready” vehicles in 2027.

Although I have my doubts about the safety and viability of this sort of idea, Lyft and Tensor’s Robocar partnership sounds like it’s more than just another robotaxi experiment. On paper, it’s a complete reimagining of what car ownership could look like. The idea that your vehicle could be out there working and even turning a profit, instead of depreciating in a driveway, sounds like the ultimate futuristic side gig that could prove lucrative, depending on the price of entry.

According to a new report published by Bloomberg, the American online retail juggernaut may be shaking up the fleet of vehicles that its Prime delivery drivers use to make deliveries. Per the report, Amazon has been quietly testing General Motors’ Chevrolet BrightDrop vans as it continues exploring options to reduce the carbon emissions from its ever-reaching last-mile delivery operations.

“We’re committed to having 100,000 electric delivery vehicles on the road by 2030, and we regularly test various vehicle options — including a small number of Chevrolet BrightDrops in our fleet,” Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly said in an emailed statement to the business publication.

Amazon is stress testing it and other vans

Per the report, the 12 Chevy BrightDrop vans that Amazon acquired from General Motors are part of a test fleet that also includes vehicles built by Ford, Stellantis, Mercedes-Benz, and well as those made by Rivian.

The testing is part of a plan to further clean up the Amazon delivery fleet, as some of its deliveries are still powered by gas-powered Ford Transit and Ram ProMaster vans. Amazon has promised to have 100,000 electric delivery vehicles delivering its packages by 2030, and to reach net-zero carbon emissions across its operations worldwide by 2040.

In an emailed statement, an Amazon spokesperson told Autoblog that the company began rolling out Rivian electric delivery vans (EDVs) in the summer of 2022. Since then, more than 25,000 vans have been deployed across the United States, helping to deliver more than a billion packages to stateside customers in 2024 alone.

Further, they emphasized that the BrightDrops are part of a “very small” pilot test involving “a little more than a dozen,” and that the tests “does not change anything about our work with Rivian.”

They also added that Rivian and Amazon have committed to deploying 100,000 delivery vans on the road by 2030, and that “more than 300” of the Rivian EDVs will be deployed in Germany, which will join their fleet of thousands of electric vans already in operation in Europe.

A potential lifeline for GM’s van venture

For GM, an Amazon contract would inject some new life into its young commercial EV business, which hasn’t been exactly smooth sailing as of late. Last year, GM folded BrightDrop into Chevrolet in an effort to boost its sales performance and unlock more dealers.

BrightDrops are manufactured at the CAMI Assembly plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, and amid cross-border tariff struggles, the plant has implemented austerity measures as vehicles have piled up at the border. Production halted in April, and as of recently, it has been operating on a one-shift schedule, a reduction that resulted in the permanent layoff of 500 workers. BrightDrops are already in use by FedEx and other big fleets like Hertz, Verizon, and Walmart.

In a statement to the Detroit Free Press, Unifor Local 88 plant chairperson Mike Van Boekel said that the opportunity to secure an Amazon contract would mean good news for the plant, especially as sales of the BrightDrop have picked up recently. “That’s a potentially big customer,” Van Boekel told the Free Press. “Those are the kinds of customers we need to attract.”

Final thoughts

All things considered, the BrightDrop van has one advantage over the Rivian: price. Per unit, Rivian’s RCV Delivery 700 starts at $87,000, while a 2025 Chevy BrightDrop 600 starts at $80,125 for a single-motor, standard-range model with up to 164 miles of range.

If you ask Amazon drivers themselves, they’d say that the software makes the difference, as Rivian and Amazon closely collaborated on making the in-van software easy to use. In an August 2024 video, YouTuber and Amazon DSP driver Chris Sing noted that, besides comforts like a heated and cooled seat, the Rivian allowed for a seamless experience between what the drivers see on their company-issued devices and the van.

“[After a delivery], the EV sets itself up for me to get to my next stop as efficiently as possible,” Sing said in his video. “[…] All we gotta do is put it in drive, and start traveling.” Hopefully, General Motors will have that sorted out as well.

If you’ve ever watched videos of a car factory, you likely know that robots play a significant role in producing the cars on the road today. Usually, these robots typically appear as large orange or yellow arms that weld components together, paint body panels, and/or handle heavy lifting or repetitive tasks that could be taxing for human workers.

However, at Mercedes-Benz’s Sprinter van plant in Düsseldorf, Germany, the newest robotic recruit doesn’t look like a traditional robot at all. Instead, it strolls on four legs, has surprisingly good hearing, and answers to the name Aris. It’s the automaker’s new robo-dog, but its purpose is not to build vans directly; it’s here to make the entire process better for Mercedes-Benz.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Aris is tasked with an important job at Düsseldorf

Unlike the kind of robot dogs you might see on YouTube doing tricks and innocuous tasks for their owners, Aris is tasked with a much more pressing task at Mercedes. His job is detecting compressed air leaks. Although it might not sound like a big deal in the grand scheme of things, compressed air systems are notorious energy hogs, especially in a facility like the 5,500-person, 325,000 square meter Sprinter factory in Düsseldorf. Just one unnoticed leak can cost thousands per year in wasted energy. 

According to the company, the robo-dog’s keen electronic ears and acoustic imaging module can localize noise anomalies and turn them into visual maps. That means that if it hears something hissing, squeaking, or buzzing where it shouldn’t, Aris will find it before it turns into a big and expensive problem. Mercedes claims that Aris’s proactive approach to maintenance prevents about 60% of energy loss from leaks, leading to annual savings in the six-figure range. 

However, Aris isn’t just tasked with checking for compressed air leaks. He can also inspect analog gauges and collect and log their data to make it easy for humans to review later. In addition, Aris can adapt to all kinds of inspection and monitoring tasks, as it can traverse stairs, patrol different facility areas, and check safety escape routes. Mercedes is also looking at future uses for Aris, like creating a digital twin for the Düsseldorf plant and allowing it to produce a complete, continuously updated 3D model of the factory floor that engineers can use to optimize workflow without shutting down production.

Aris isn’t the first robot Mercedes put on duty

Aris is just the latest robotic experiment Mercedes-Benz is exploring in its production facilities. In March 2024, the automaker invested heavily in Austin, Texas-based robotics firm Apptronik. As recently as March 2025, its Apollo robots have been trialed at the Berlin-Marienfelde factory with internal logistics and repetitive tasks such as moving components and modules to the assembly line for skilled human technicians to install on cars.

Aris won’t be the only robot working at the Düsseldorf plant, either. The facility is also introducing drone technology to assist with the less glamorous task of counting empty containers. Currently, employees are responsible for this routine job, but the AI-backed drone can identify load carriers based on their shape, outline, and dimensions. 

While this may not seem as exciting as a robot dog, it allows employees to avoid monotonous work, giving them more time to focus on higher-level problem-solving tasks. Interestingly, both the robot dog and the drone can connect to cloud applications, enabling them to eventually interact with each other and with other robots across different Mercedes-Benz plants, creating an ecosystem of digital coworkers.

Final thoughts

Mercedes is far from the only automaker experimenting with robots on the factory floor. For example, Tesla has been experimenting with further integrating its own Optimus humanoid robots both in its factories and outside with customers. 

In August 2024, Mercedes’ Bavarian rival BMW experimented with humanoid robots to “save employees from having to perform ergonomically awkward and tiring tasks.” For several weeks, the automaker conducted a trial run of the Figure 02 humanoid robot from California-based company Figure. It “successfully inserted sheet metal parts into specific fixtures, which were then assembled as part of the chassis,” a job that requires workers to be “particularly dexterous.”

Although a technological future with robots and artificial intelligence may seem like virtual insanity, these technologies have the potential to make things operate more efficiently, which may ultimately produce a more competitively priced item.

A Bigger Body, But Surprisingly Agile

The Model Y L is longer and roomier than the standard Y, with six proper seats and a comfort-oriented suspension. Yet, when Chinese bloggers threw it into the moose test, the results were far from lumbering. Adaptive dampers, revised steering, and subtle suspension tweaks allowed the big EV to remain calm at speeds that would embarrass rivals.

It’s a significant win for Tesla’s engineers — particularly as the company wrestles with questions over whether its tech is being oversold. Only this week, a California judge ruled that Tesla drivers can move forward with a class action over Full Self-Driving claims, arguing that Elon Musk’s statements may have misled buyers. Against that backdrop, the elk test acts as a reminder: marketing spin or not, some Teslas still back their promises with performance.

Why The Elk Test Matters to Tesla Now

The moose test isn’t just a stunt. Originating in Sweden in the 1970s after rollover crashes, it’s designed to simulate emergency obstacle avoidance — a real-world scenario. Most family SUVs are deemed “good” if they can survive it at 50 mph. The Model Y L did it at 72 mph fully loaded, and testers say it could probably push even higher with fewer passengers.

That’s a critical narrative for Tesla at a time when customer trust is wobbling. In China, where the Y L is sold, Tesla recently backtracked on its controversial removal of turn-signal stalks after local backlash, restoring them to the Model 3 lineup. Moves like this suggest Tesla is finally listening more closely to drivers — and strong safety performance adds weight to that pivot.

The Bigger Picture: Handling vs. Hype

The question Tesla faces isn’t whether it can build quick, clever cars. It’s whether it can win back the confidence of drivers who are tired of half-delivered promises. Full Self-Driving, still priced at $8,000, continues to divide opinion, with analysts highlighting strengths like lane changes but weaknesses in city streets.

Against that backdrop, physical proof of capability — like a fully loaded elk test success — may be Tesla’s best rebuttal. While lawsuits drag on in courtrooms and software updates creep forward, it’s the cold, hard tests like this one that tell buyers what they’re really getting for their money.

The Takeaway

Tesla’s Model Y L didn’t just ace the elk test — it aced the narrative test too. In a market that’s growing weary of courtroom drama and overpromises, showing an SUV that can swerve at 72 mph with six passengers is a reminder that some Teslas still walk the walk.

Whether it’s enough to balance out the noise surrounding the brand is another question, but for now, at least, the Model Y L’s agility gives Tesla a win it badly needed.

Congress has introduced new legislation that would create a regulatory framework for U.S. autonomous trucking. The bill, introduced by U.S. Representative Vince Fong from California, is named the “AMERICA DRIVES” act, which stands for the “Autonomous Mobility Ensuring Regulation, Innovation, Commerce, and Advancement Driving Reliability in Vehicle Efficiency and Safety Act.” Fong notes that establishing a national standard for this industry would help avoid varying state-by-state requirements.

If passed, the law would grant self-driving trucks with Level 4 or Level 5 autonomy permission to operate on interstates without an onboard human driver or a remote safety operator. Advocates of the bill argue that such approval would advance America’s position in the self-driving race while also helping solve a nationwide shortage of drivers. According to AltLine, the U.S. has a truck driver staff shortage of 24,000, resulting in the domestic freight industry missing out on $95.5 million weekly. Representative Fong said, “While Europe and China are rapidly integrating autonomous trucks into their supply chains, America is asleep at the wheel, hamstrung by a confusing patchwork of state regulations that threaten public safety, innovation, and economic growth,” Advanced Clean Tech News reports. 

Fong’s bill would exempt autonomous trucks from human-specific requirements enforced by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), such as hours of service, drug testing, commercial driver’s licenses, and certain physical qualifications. Self-driving trucks would also be able to contain cab-mounted flashing warning beacons signaling a disabled status—a feature previously barred under federal law. Cab-mounted flashing warning beacons would replace the traditional human-led response of placing warning triangles on the ground near disabled vehicles.

Fong’s legislation would request that the USDOT and the FMCSA update federal regulations by 2027. There are 35 states allowing some form of autonomous truck testing or deployment, while other states have restrictive or conflicting regulations, according to Overdrive Online. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where it needs approval before heading to the full House.

Fong and other AMERICA DRIVES advocates can expect pushback

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) wrote to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in March promoting a cautious approach to autonomous trucking that emphasizes public transparency. OOIDA President Todd Spencer said, “While autonomous vehicles might improve safety under certain conditions, they create new risks with dangerous outcomes. OOIDA has advocated for autonomous vehicle standards that are based on documented research and testing data. OOIDA supports mandatory testing, safety, and crash-reporting requirements that will provide the public with direct and easy access to information about autonomous vehicle performance,” Land Line Media reports.

Missy Cummings, Director of George Mason University’s Autonomy and Robotics Center, identified phantom braking—unexpected braking during self-driving—as a key hurdle autonomous trucks must overcome to achieve success. She added that a failure to address phantom braking in trucking will negatively impact the rollout of self-driving passenger cars.

Final thoughts 

Advocates of AMERICA DRIVES, such as U.S. Representative Fong, believe that the bill will resolve a complicated patchwork of state-level rules that could hinder America’s progress in autonomy while simultaneously addressing a driver shortage. According to the Washington Examiner, 75% of all U.S. freight is delivered by truck, and an overworked and under-resourced industry results in slower deliveries and higher prices. Chinese companies are already deploying autonomous driving systems at scale across over 85% of China’s national highways, placing increasing pressure on Washington to update regulations while keeping safety at the forefront.

What It Took To Reach The Arctic

This was no lightly padded road trip. Over nearly 20,000 kilometers, Nadeau’s Ioniq 5 averaged 18.9 kWh/100 km, needed 87 charging stops, and carried 400 pounds of gear — including a full-size spare. Total cost in electricity? Just $1,403 CAD — or around $1,025 USD — for a journey that would’ve cost more than twice that with gas.

Notably, this wasn’t the high-performance Ioniq 5 N, the $66,000 beast that Hyundai recently dropped a competitive lease deal on. This was the more grounded, long-range version, and that made the feat more relevant — especially for real-world EV buyers who are less interested in drift modes and more concerned with how their EV will perform on a winter highway.

Of course, for those still cross-shopping the Ioniq 5 N, experts have suggested there might be better value in trims like the Limited or Preferred unless you’re heading straight for a race track. This journey underscores that point — a factory-standard Ioniq 5 handled thousands of kilometers, gravel roads, flooded ferry crossings, and wildfire detours with zero mechanical complaints. It’s what you’d call a stress test in the real world.

This Wasn’t Just About Driving

Hyundai also used the trip to support its Hope on Wheels campaign, shooting virtual reality content that will soon be delivered to children’s hospitals across Canada. The goal: provide young patients with immersive VR experiences of Canada’s north, bringing the Arctic into treatment rooms through the eyes of the Ioniq 5’s windshield.

That mission aligned nicely with the Ioniq 5’s broader appeal — a car that’s as comfortable in slushy city commutes as it is charging through the Yukon. As we saw in our review of the refreshed 2025 Ioniq 5 Limited, the car blends performance, comfort, and usability in a way that’s steadily won over skeptics.

From Ice Roads To High Speeds

After reaching the Arctic Ocean and pausing briefly in Ucluelet, British Columbia during the 2026 Ioniq 9 media launch, Nadeau turned the journey home into a rapid-fire sprint, averaging over 1,000 km per day. A trip that started as a slow-paced sightseeing mission became a no-nonsense return leg that proved the Ioniq 5’s rapid charging ability and fatigue-free ride comfort.

No charging miracles. No super-secret prototype tweaks. Just a regular Ioniq 5 and a bit of planning — the same kind of trip more EV drivers may soon find themselves attempting as infrastructure improves.

In short, this wasn’t just a road trip. It was a rolling case study — not in speculation, but in execution. The Ioniq 5 didn’t just survive the Arctic. It made it look easy.

Two Florida dealerships are facing legal trouble over allegations that they sold used vehicles as new—an accusation that, if proven true, could land them in serious violation of state consumer protection laws.

One of the lawsuits, filed in early July, accuses Sun Toyota in Holiday, Florida, of selling a 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser as “new” despite the vehicle allegedly having prior use. The buyer, Shawn Crowley, claims the Land Cruiser was represented as a brand-new model with just “10 factory miles” on the odometer. But according to court documents, Crowley later discovered that the SUV had been used by dealership staff and should have been sold as a used vehicle.

A second, separate lawsuit has been filed against another Florida dealership over similar allegations—though the details of that case are still sealed or pending full release.

A Pattern Of Misrepresentation?

In both cases, the plaintiffs argue that the dealerships violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), which prohibits businesses from making false or misleading claims about a product’s condition, history, or use. While some dealers lean on “as-is” clauses to cover themselves, state law is clear: you cannot legally sell a used vehicle while representing it as new—especially when mileage, documentation, or vehicle history suggest otherwise.

The cases mirror a larger trend of automotive legal action across the US. From mechanical defects to misleading sales practices, frustrated consumers are increasingly turning to the courts when dealerships or automakers fail to deliver honest transactions. Just last month, GM was sued over claims its vehicles can be stolen in under 30 seconds, thanks to reportedly hackable keyless entry systems.

Lawsuits Mounting Across The Industry

Legal action isn’t limited to just dealerships. Ford is currently fending off a class action lawsuit from EcoBoost owners who allege the company has ignored persistent engine defects. Rather than issuing proper fixes, the lawsuit claims Ford applied temporary patches and software updates that did little to address the root cause—often after warranty coverage expired.

And Mazda is under fire too. CX-90 lessees have sued the company over noisy, juddering brakes that reportedly won’t stay fixed, even after multiple dealership visits and service bulletins. Plaintiffs argue that the persistent issues amount to a defect in all 2024–2025 models.

In that context, the Florida lawsuits—though centered on sales tactics rather than mechanical problems—highlight a growing wave of scrutiny toward all corners of the automotive industry. Whether it’s faulty parts or misleading paperwork, consumers are becoming more assertive in demanding accountability.

What Buyers Can Do

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Florida dealership cases are asking for damages, court costs, and—most importantly—a ruling that confirms the vehicles were misrepresented. If the court sides with the buyers, it could trigger further investigations or additional claims from other customers who purchased vehicles from the same dealers.

In the meantime, experts recommend that consumers shopping for “new” vehicles double-check the vehicle history report, confirm mileage, and ask whether the car has been used as a demo or staff loaner. If anything seems off, walk away—or at least consult a lawyer before signing.

Despite sharing a segment, a badge, and even some drivetrain DNA, Mazda insists the CX‑5 and CX‑50 are not competitors — at least not with each other. With the 2026 CX‑5 officially confirmed and the CX‑50 continuing strong into 2025, Mazda has laid out a clear case for why these two compact SUVs aren’t stepping on each other’s toes.

“We believe in the coexistence of these two vehicles because this is the largest segment in the industry,” said Stefan Meisterfeld, VP of Strategic Planning at Mazda North America, in an interview with Motor1. “We see customers who lean more towards the urban, sophisticated direction — which is obviously CX‑5. But we also see the more rugged and more adventure-oriented customer in the CX‑50.”

Two Mazdas, Two Philosophies

The CX‑5 has long been Mazda’s bread-and-butter crossover — stylish, city-friendly, and road-focused. The redesigned 2026 model continues that legacy with sharp new styling, meaningful cabin upgrades, and the introduction of a Mazda-developed hybrid system. As we reported recently, the new CX‑5 brings stunning innovations to one of the most crowded vehicle classes in the country, and it’s doing so without copying the CX‑50’s playbook.

Meanwhile, the CX‑50 is all about versatility. It rides a bit higher, wears more rugged bodywork, and has quickly gained traction with weekend adventurers and trail-goers. It’s also the first Mazda built in Alabama alongside Toyota, and the first to use Toyota’s hybrid system. In fact, the 2025 CX‑50 Hybrid offers up to 38 mpg, standard AWD, and the kind of confident steering feel that’s earned praise across the board — even from drivers loyal to Honda.

Built for Different Buyers

Meisterfeld says Mazda is one of the only mainstream brands offering two compact SUVs in the same class with such distinct identities. “We see them coexist perfectly next to each other… I think we have a unique proposition here.”

The sales data backs that up. In 2024, Mazda moved over 134,000 CX‑5s and nearly 81,000 CX‑50s, making them the brand’s top-selling vehicles behind only the subcompact CX‑30. With both models pulling their weight and appealing to different types of buyers, there’s no immediate need to choose one over the other.

For those still undecided, the CX‑50 review offers a helpful breakdown: it’s got capability, efficiency, and genuinely good looks — though its ride comfort and interior materials leave room for thought.

What’s Next?

Mazda has already confirmed the CX‑5 Hybrid will arrive in 2027, using an in-house system rather than Toyota’s setup. While the CX‑50 Hybrid is focused on fuel economy and affordability, the CX‑5’s future hybrid will lean toward performance and Mazda’s signature driving feel.

Built in Japan, the CX‑5 will maintain its distinct flavor — smooth, athletic, and focused. The CX‑50, built in Alabama and tuned for active lifestyles, will continue to do its own thing. They share a segment, yes, but according to Mazda, that’s where the overlap ends.

From Special Edition To Showroom Mainstay

Originally revealed as a limited-run performance SUV in 2023, the Range Rover Sport SV immediately made waves for its mix of brutal pace and high-end luxury. It features a BMW-sourced 4.4-liter twin-turbo V8, producing 626 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque on overboost. The result is a 2.5-tonne SUV capable of launching from 0–60 mph in just 3.8 seconds — or 3.6 seconds in SV Black trim.

This makes it the fastest and most powerful Range Rover Sport ever built, and a serious rival to the Lamborghini Urus, Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT, and BMW X5 M Competition.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Carbon, Ceramics, And 6D Dynamics

Beyond the headline figures, the SV boasts serious hardware. 6D Dynamics tech uses cross-linked hydraulic dampers to reduce pitch and dive under braking and acceleration — all without traditional anti-roll bars. In SV mode, the ride height drops by 15mm for a sharper stance and flatter handling.

Stopping power comes courtesy of carbon ceramic brakes, while optional 23-inch carbon wheels shave off unsprung weight. Land Rover claims they’re 41% lighter than standard alloys, improving both handling and ride comfort.

Inside, there’s no shortage of Range Rover luxury: Body & Soul seats come with built-in haptic feedback (via SUBPAC tech), high-grade leathers, and a full suite of tech and comfort features. It’s just as much a long-distance cruiser as it is a back-road bruiser.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

SV Black: Murdered Out And Even Faster

For those who find the standard SV a bit too subtle, Land Rover now offers the SV Black — finished in Narvik Gloss Black with a carbon hood, black calipers, gloss black quad exhausts, and 23-inch forged wheels. Inside, buyers get Ebony Windsor leather, gloss black trim, and illuminated treadplates.

Performance gets a slight bump too: the SV Black hits 180 mph and cuts the 0–60 mph time to 3.6 seconds, thanks in part to reduced weight and aero tweaks.

Verdict

With the SV now part of the full-time lineup, Land Rover is giving more buyers access to one of its most extreme performance models to date. It’s no longer an invitation-only special — it’s a production halo car aimed at stealing market share from the ultra-premium performance SUV crowd.

It’s still a 2.5-tonne luxury tank. It’s still hilariously quick. And now, if you’ve got $200,000 burning a hole in your bank account, you can actually go and order one.

Uber’s CEO has boldly declared that the company is ready to launch its U.K. self-driving fleet, but regulatory hurdles have caused the rideshare service to pump its brakes for now. In 2024, the U.K.’s Department of Transport said that the Automated Vehicles Act would allow autonomous cars to be on roads by 2026. However, current regulations require self-driving vehicles to have a human behind the wheel, and the deadline for details on how autonomous fleets can deploy has been pushed to 2027, Newsweek reports.

Last June’s general election in the U.K. led to a new government reviewing legislative frameworks on self-driving cars, influencing the change in launch timing. Andrew Macdonald, senior vice president of mobility at Uber, told the BBC: “We’re ready to launch robotaxis in the UK as soon as the regulatory environment is ready for us.” 

Macdonald added that Uber is working with 18 automated vehicle tech companies, including Wayve, which is helping launch Nissan’s next-generation ProPILOT driver-assist system. In the U.S., Uber runs a self-driving fleet with Waymo, generally considered the world’s leading autonomous rideshare service, with plans to deploy thousands of electric ID. Buzz self-driving vans starting next year in Los Angeles. The U.K.’s Department of Transportation is working to release autonomous vehicle legislation in the second half of 2027 while exploring short-term trials and pilot programs for the tech, according to the BBC. While Macdonald noted that Uber is ready to launch its robotaxis in the U.K., he emphasized the brand’s commitment to safety by saying, “One accident is too many.” Waymo reported in late April that its autonomous fleet was involved in 81% fewer injury-causing crashes compared to a human benchmark over tens of millions of miles. 

Autonomy expert highlights the hurdles governments and companies like Uber face with self-driving tech

Dr. Saber Fallah, a professor of safe artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy at the University of Surrey, told Newsweek that the U.K.’s decision to delay regulatory frameworks for self-driving vehicles will help the public get on board with the tech that many still view as risky.

“While the maturity of certain technologies, such as those proposed by Uber, is advancing rapidly, readiness must be judged not just on how well the technology performs in ideal conditions, but also on how consistently and reliably it makes decisions in complex real-world environments. The fundamental challenge lies in bridging the gap between statistical learning and human-level reasoning. Current autonomous vehicle systems often lack the capacity to explain their decisions, adapt meaningfully to unique scenarios, or respond with the nuanced judgment that human drivers routinely demonstrate. True readiness requires systems that offer traceable reasoning, safety assurance, and hybrid validation under diverse conditions. Legally and ethically, certifying decision-making processes that remain unclear to regulators poses significant risks,” Fallah explained.

Fallah also cited infrastructure gaps, primarily in digital connectivity and scenario testing, as hindering the progress of autonomous cars. In other words, self-driving vehicles can still experience difficulty communicating with each other and the road infrastructure, and there are limited ways to test all the real-world scenarios the tech might face.

Final thoughts

While Fallah raises several valid points on the challenges of commercializing autonomous fleets, he also offers insight into how tech companies and government regulators can overcome these obstacles. Fallah views the key ingredients to self-driving cars’ success as emphasizing public assurance, regulation, AI transparency, and human oversight. This industry expert described the U.S. and China as placing less emphasis on assurance and regulation, but China has demonstrated a recent commitment to tighter regulations with actions like banning words like “smart” and “autonomous” from vehicle ads.

Rivian has recorded its second successive quarter of gross profits, resulting in the electric automaker receiving $1 billion in funding from the Volkswagen (VW) Group as a provision of the two companies’ joint venture launched in November. By 2027, VW Group is expected to invest up to $5.8 billion in the partnership, which spawned a new company called Rivian and VW Group Technology. The deal will play a significant role in supporting Rivian’s launch of its less-expensive R2 and R3 crossover vehicle platforms, which begins with the R2’s release in early 2026.

The remaining money from the VW Group will be released in chunks over time. The electric carmaker currently sells its R1T pickup, which has a base price of $69,900, its R1S SUV that starts at $75,900, and its RCV (Rivian Commercial Van), which sells from $83,000. In addition to Q1 being Rivian’s second quarter in a row making gross profit, it was the company’s second-ever quarter achieving positive gross earnings. On Tuesday, Rivian’s founder and CEO, R.J. Scaringe, said that the company expects to receive the VW Group’s $1 billion by the end of June, InsideEVs reports. 

Vehicle, software, and service sales drove Rivian’s Q1 gross profit, totaling $206 million. “This quarter, we hit our second consecutive gross profit and our highest gross profit to date at $206 million. We have continued to make significant progress on R2, including vehicle validation builds underway and our Normal, Illinois, manufacturing facility expansion on track,” Scaringe said. In March, Rivian conducted over 7,000 “electric joyrides” at Austin, Texas’s SXSW festival, which included on-road and off-road portions. During Q1, Rivian recorded more than 36,000 demo drives. Rivian also partnered with meal kit delivery company HelloFresh, which uses 70 of the automaker’s RCV commercial vans in its subsidiary Factor’s delivery fleet. Factor specializes in delivering ready-to-eat meals that only need heating, while HelloFresh focuses on meal kits with pre-portioned ingredients. 

Despite a strong Q1, Rivian, formed in 2009, isn’t yet profitable. InsideEVs reports that Rivian disclosed a net loss of $541 million for Q1. In other words, Rivian is selling vehicles for less than it spends on manufacturing, but hasn’t yet achieved long-term sustainability when accounting for additional fixed costs like rent.

Rivian warns it’ll sell fewer cars than expected because of Trump’s trade war 

Rivian will still suffer some setbacks from President Trump’s tariffs despite exclusively manufacturing vehicles in the U.S. and sourcing a majority of its materials, except for cells, from the U.S. or USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement) qualified outlets. Trump’s new policies resulted in Rivian lowering its number of expected vehicle deliveries for 2025 from 46,000 to 40,000 and increasing its annual capital expenditure guidance from $1.8 billion to $1.9 billion, according to Business Wire. 

Final thoughts

While Rivian lowered its vehicle delivery estimate and increased its capital expenditure guidance for 2025, the electric automaker is in a favorable long-term position with $3.5 billion left to earn from its joint venture with the VW Group, the upcoming release of its more affordable R2 and R3 platforms, and a reserve of batteries it built before the implementation of Trump’s tariffs. Rivian’s CEO said the R2’s $45,000 starting price won’t change despite tariff adversity. Aside from the $3.5 billion Rivian will receive from the VW Group contingent on milestone completions, the VW Group will also invest $1.3 billion in the joint venture’s closing as consideration for IP background licenses and a 50% stake in the partnership.

• Work Truck: $38,995 ($300)
• Custom: $45,595 ($100)
• LT: $50,095 ($200)
• Custom Trail Boss: $53,795 ($100)
• RST: $54,395 ($200)
• LT Trail Boss: $60,795 ($900)
• LTZ: $59,695 ($600)
• High Country: $64,695 ($100)
• ZR2: $71,995 ($200)
• ZR2 Bison: $77,090 ($200)

The plushest urban truck tops out with the High Country powered by the optional 6.2-liter V8 at $70,990.

The easy updates to explain are the color palette losing four colors and gaining two. Cypress Gray and Riptide Blue Metallic are new, whereas Dark Ash Metallic, Glacier Blue Metallic, Harvest Bronze Metallic, and Lakeshore Blue Metallic are all gone. After that, it’s a quick walk into tall weeds with detailed revisions, which read in some cases like either product planners trying to get more popular specs on the lot or the accounting department trying to save a few dollars on every unit. In what we’ll guess is the former category, the 2024 LT Trail Boss sits on standard 18-inch rims wearing 275/70 Goodyear Wrangler Territory M/T tires; in 2025, that package changes to a 20-inch wheel wrapped in unnamed 275/60 tires, which is the optional tire package on the 2024 truck. It’s possible most buyers went for the more street-oriented package, but everyone will still get the option to go more intense.

Elsewhere, the Custom trim loses access to the Dark Appearance Package, the three different specs of 10-speed automatic play switcheroo with engines and trim availability, and FlexFuel capability with the 5.3-liter EcoTec V8 can require four-wheel drive on at least one trim. Hit up GM Authority for the full breakdown if you bleed Bowtie.

In addition to the SUV’s pre-launch death, Ford said it’s delaying production for its next-generation electric pickup built on the T3 platform. This would-be Lightning successor (built on a dedicated EV platform instead of a modified F-150 one) is said to be pushed back by about 18 months into late 2027. A midsize truck under development by a Ford “skunkworks” team in California (with the aim being affordability) is also scheduled to launch in 2027.

Instead of the three-row electric SUV, Ford says it’s turning attention to hybrid vehicles for future three-row offerings. There’s no timeline, but Ford’s statement says to expect “breakthrough efficiency, performance benefits and emissions reductions versus pure gas vehicles and extend the range of the vehicle on road trips relative to pure electric vehicles.” Ford also stated that it would provide an update on the company’s electrification plans in the first half of 2025, so perhaps we’ll learn more next year.

All that said, Ford remains committed to updating and evolving its current EVs, the Mustang Mach-E and F-150 Lightning. It also plans to begin production of a next-generation commercial van in 2026 at its Ohio Assembly plant. And while Ford was originally meant to begin vehicle assembly at its giant Tennessee production facility next year, now it only plans on battery cell production there in 2025.

These moves will cost Ford financially, as the company says it “will take a special non-cash charge of about $400 million for the write-down of certain product-specific manufacturing assets for the previously planned all-electric three-row SUVs.” Ford also says such actions could result in additional expenses and cash expenditures of $1.5 billion. In terms of overall spending, Ford says it will reduce its annual cash expenditures on EVs from 40% to 30%. Ultimately, Ford believes these moves today will help it deliver a profitable EV business in the future.

As important as it is to get more electric options to regular consumers, the “mass market” is still only a portion of the vehicles on the road. Commercial vehicles, including vans and trucks, are sold in staggering numbers, many of which spend much of their time around town, running goods and equipment to local homes and businesses. Those are the least efficient routes you can pick for an internal combustion vehicle, which is bad for both the bottom line and the environment. Going electric therefore makes a lot of sense, but to date, the only electric commercial van was the Ford E-Transit. Well, it’s now being joined by the Ram ProMaster EV. It’s easily the nicest version to drive, and has specs that could make it a tempting alternative to the Ford. “Tempting” is not the same as “good,” however, as the Promaster EV is simply priced too high. 

The Ram ProMaster EV is not actually the first version of this van to be electrified. You see, the ProMaster is but one badge-engineered take on a commercial vehicle available throughout the Stellantis empire. In fact, way back in 2020, Peugeot was the first to reveal an electric version of what it calls the Boxer (the E-Boxer), while the Fiat E-Ducato debuted a few years after. They are not all the same, however. Of the two vans, the ProMaster EV mirrors the Peugeot with a higher-output motor under the snub nose powering the front wheels. It produces 268 horsepower and 302 pound-feet of torque. That’s only down 8 hp to the Pentastar V6-powered ProMaster, and up 50 pound-feet of torque. That output is also right in line with the Ford, which sits at 266 horsepower and 317 pound-feet of torque, though the Ford sends its power to the rear wheels rather than the front. Something to consider for those in the Snow Belt.

Backing the ProMaster’s motor is 110-kilowatt-hours of battery capacity, which is also the same as the Peugeot. It’s the sole battery option, and Ram is targeting a maximum city range of 174 miles, though it said it expects a little more than 160 miles with the van loaded to half its payload capacity. Range estimates are also based on American test cycles (the Peugeot and Fiat quote the extremely optimistic WLTP test methodology, so there’s no accurate comparison to be had). More importantly, the ProMaster EV tops the Ford’s 89-kWh battery pack and maximum range estimate of 159 miles for the low-roof cargo van.

Maximum fast-charging speed is 150 kilowatts, but it seems more likely that businesses would recharge in the evening. (If they routinely need more than the ProMaster EV’s stated range in a day, an EV probably isn’t the best bet at this time.) As such, it is capable of 11-kW Level 2 AC charging, which is what you can expect from the typical “home” charger.

There will be two versions of the ProMaster EV available. The delivery van, which will be the first, is a high-roof van that differs mainly in the addition of a roll-up rear cargo door, and a sliding pocket door behind the front passenger door. These are added to provide easy ingress and egress to the cargo area without requiring clearance to open doors. The other, more conventional cargo van variant coming later next year is also a high-roof van, but with more typical split rear doors and a normal sliding van door behind the passenger door. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is payload: 2,030 pounds for the delivery van and 3,020 for the cargo van. For comparison sake, cargo E-Transits range from 2,799 to 3,249 pounds, depending on wheelbase and roof height, and the chassis-cab and cutaway models are rated higher (though that’s also to accommodate whatever custom box would be fitted). Ram claims up to 524 cubic feet of space, though it didn’t specify whether it was the delivery or cargo model, versus up to 536 cubic feet with Ford’s high-roof E-Transit. It should also be said that the ProMaster has the exact same cargo capacity as the gas-powered version since the battery pack is under the floor.  

That’s enough numbers, though, it’s time to touch on how the ProMaster EV drives. We haven’t actually had the opportunity to drive the E-Transit, so we can’t compare them, but we were able to drive both the gas and electric ProMasters back-to-back. The EV is unquestionably the way to go if you can work with the range and charging needs. While the Pentastar and its nine-speed automatic are reasonably smooth, you can’t beat an electric motor with a single speed. The more immediate response from the throttle made the van feel far quicker and easier to punt around. Tackling on-ramps was also more pleasant without the accompanying furious thrumming of the V6. This particular example was electronically capped to 70 mph, but it would happily do more, which was confirmed by Ram representatives. Ram also notes that there is a one-pedal driving mode for the EV, but it was not enabled on our test vehicle.

The rest of the experience (we only had access to the delivery model) was virtually identical to the combustion ProMaster, which is to say that it’s very much a commercial van. Being just a huge metal box, it is echo-y and a bit rattly. The short nose and seating placed almost right over the front wheels can only be approximated by a bus, especially with the relatively horizontal steering wheel. With the enormous windshield, forward visibility is phenomenal. There’s also plenty of room in basically every direction, and it’s pretty easy to find a comfortable seating position. It feels very different from most passenger vehicles, which is novel and fun for someone less familiar with commercial vehicles, and probably not at all interesting for delivery drivers.

It has solid infotainment featuring with a 7-inch instrument screen and 10.1-inch center screen. And it can be equipped with a heated steering wheel, heated windshield, adaptive cruise control with lane-centering, blind-spot warning, and wireless phone charging. The blind-spot warning seems like a must for such an enormous vehicle with no rear windows, as does, surprisingly, the heated windshield. Trying to defog that huge windshield with the HVAC system is not going to be efficient, so having embedded heaters should be beneficial for range.

So far so good for the ProMaster EV, but as mentioned earlier, the price is the sticking point. Although the cargo version’s pricing is still to come, the delivery model starts at $79,990. The E-Transit cargo van starts at around $52,000, and the chassis-cabs and cutaways start at lower prices. Now, hypothetically, there’s a strong chance the delivery configuration will cover any custom upfitting that customers might have to add to a chassis-cab or cutaway, but that’s still a steep price for a commercial van.

So the ProMaster EV is definitely the best ProMaster to drive. And reduced fuel and likely maintenance costs are appealing to businesses, not to mention the environmental benefits. But the price makes for a barrier that could slow adoption. We’re hoping the cargo model’s price gets close to the Ford’s, because more electric vans are good for everyone.