Joke
Just because you have to have car insurance to drive on the streets of Minnesota doesn’t mean you have to pay top dollar for it. There are several tips that can help you save money on your auto coverage. Some you may already be aware of but some are very simple and are easily overlooked.
The first thing to do is find out what the required liability insurance coverage is for Minnesota. After you know what you must have you can start adding in coverage that you want to include. Knowing exactly what each coverage pays for is the key to building a plan that works best for you at the best rate. Having coverage that you don’t need is a waste of your hard earned money. Having more insurance isn’t always the best case scenario. Having the best coverage for your money is.
Many people don’t utilize this tip enough – shop around. It may seem easier to stay with the same agent but you will be surprised at how the rates may fluctuate for the same amount of coverage. You should talk with your friends and family members to see which companies they use and get their feedback on how the insurers they use process claims and how often they raise rates, etc.
Save some time and hopefully some money by using the speed and vast information available on the internet. It will give you the most feedback in the shortest amount of time. Just input your information on the site of one of the companies who obtain your insurance criteria and then match it up with a number of different companies. They will either provide you with local contact information or provide you directly with rate comparisons.
One simple tip where you can save some money right away without even affecting your coverage is to raise your deductibles. Simply by increasing your out of pocket expenses from $250 to $500 on just one deductible will save you up to 10 percent a year. So if your annual car insurance premium runs around $1,200 you could save about $120 without changing your coverage.
Eliminating your collision coverage could also save you from spending unnecessary money. You may be wasting your time if you are carrying collision coverage on an older vehicle that is not worth it. It may cost close to what you are paying for a deductible to repair your vehicle if it is damaged in an accident.
Insurance companies are eager to get your business so check with your agent or carrier to see if they offer any discounts for keeping your mileage down each year, having a safer car, keeping your driving record clean and even for keeping your grades up and being a good student.
And here is another often overlooked tip: check over your policy for errors when you first get it. Then make sure that you update your information upon renewal. Things change from year to year –and sometimes sooner than that – so let your insurance agent know so your premiums will reflect these changes.
We appreciate Infiniti’s forthrightness in announcing a sixth model for the American market. The company is using the occasion of the
to tease us with a sketch of the seven-passenger JX crossover, while a concept will appear at the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance in August and the production version will bow at the L.A. auto show this November. Glad that’s out of the way. The rest of the details, however, are still murky.
To wit, the watercolors-meet-blur-tool rendering shows a metal-trimmed sidelight opening that sweeps back into a kinked D-pillar, a treatment very similar to the one on Infiniti’s recent
. (That same kinky look was also used on Infiniti’s too-hot-for-production
.) Muscular fenders and flowing body lines match the rest of Infiniti’s current lineup, save for the more blocky QX56. Fortunately for the JX, by way of its two-box shape, it doesn’t appear to suffer from the which-way-is-it-heading problem the Etherea did.
There’s no official word on what will motivate the JX, but
last summer provide some hints. Infiniti has secured the rights to the JX20, JX25, JX25h, and JX30 badges, suggesting a lineup that could include four-cylinders, V-6s, and a hybrid. It’s doubtful that all four would be offered, with the more likely explanation being Infiniti’s desire to safeguard the alphanumerics for possible future use. The hybrid, however, is almost a guarantee, if not from the start.
An all-wheel-drive option also is a given, although the JX may be the first Infiniti in a long while to be based on a front-drive architecture instead of a rear-drive platform. If that is in fact the case, we won’t be surprised if Nissan gets its own version of the large crossover.
We also won’t be surprised when the expected concept looks nearly production-ready. If we don’t know much about the JX, at least we know exactly when we’ll know more. Look for more details at Pebble this summer.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/11q2/2013_infiniti_jx_concept_sketch-auto_shows
The basic question here is analogous to one we’ve all encountered in the course of the dating game, to wit: If the package is exceptionally attractive, is the disappointment proportionally greater when substance fails to match appearance? Buick’s recent offerings have been striking, with sexy sheetmetal implying hot performance. The
certainly registers well on the eyeballs, its skin stretched tight and smooth over the underlying hardware, suggesting adventure, maybe even love.
And what do we see inside the handsome cabin of this turbocharged Buick? Could that be a manual-transmission shifter protruding from the center console? Yes it could, and it directs a six-speed gearbox of GM’s own design. A shift-it-yourself Buick—imagine that.
Hold the Excitement The promising powertrain combo—GM’s 2.0-liter direct-injection turbo four spins the gears in that six-speed with 220 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque—had us anticipating a little more gratification than we distilled from the turbo automatic, which finished third of three in a recent
.
Our expectations made the actual driving disappointment that much keener. True, the manual’s numbers best those we recorded with the automatic version: The 0-to-60 mph run took 6.8 seconds versus 7.5, and the quarter-mile was dispatched in 15.4 seconds at 93 mph, which is 0.3 second quicker and 2 mph faster. But the experience wasn’t commensurately improved.
The manual’s gear ratios don’t seem well matched to the engine’s power band. There’s a substantial spread between the 2000-rpm torque peak and max horsepower, which comes on at 5300 rpm. Careful rowing is required to keep the four-banger from feeling as if it were lugging. That would be more tolerable if the rowing were a source of pleasure, but it’s not. The six-speed is vague, notchy, and resistant to any suggestion of haste. Its general reluctance is suggestive of a gearbox from another era.
Sure-Footed Although the powertrain leaves something to be desired, the rest of the Regal’s dynamic score card seems to be at least acceptable in the edge-of-luxury sport-sedan market it aspires to.
In a class where high chassis rigidity is a minimum for entry, the Regal’s unibody has an exceptionally solid feel—which may account for its hefty curb weight—and transient responses are brisk and free of drama. The low-effort steering could provide a bit more tactile info, but with a little experience, the driver can attack corners with confidence.
Ride quality is pleasant on all surfaces, and body motion is minimal; there’s a strong similarity to the BMW school of suspension tuning here. The suspension does a good job of filtering out road noise. There’s also plenty of grip—the Regal manual pulled 0.84 g on the skidpad—and good braking performance to go with it, with the car stopping from 70 mph in 170 feet.
MPG,
dBA, and MSRP
The Regal does a good job of damping road noise, but the engine is more audible than one might wish for—and not in a good way. It’s a bit rough around the edges for a car in this class. It was also thirsty in our testing. The EPA rates this version of the Regal at 20 mpg city and 32 mpg highway, compared with 18/28 in the automatic. Our automatic comparo car averaged 27 mpg in a trek that stuck mostly to the highways. We averaged just over 21 mpg with the stick, although that included more suburban and urban driving than in the previous test, as well as perhaps more time near the redline.
And then there’s the money. The base price for this Regal is $29,495, which undercuts cars like the Acura TSX V-6 and Volkswagen CC 2.0T R-Line, the Buick’s comparison-test opponents. But with $5690 in options, including a sunroof, two-mode suspension, 19-inch aluminum alloy wheels, HID headlights, and premium audio with navigation, the Regal rolls onto BMW 3-series and Audi A4 turf and loses some appeal—appeal, we must add, that is
not enhanced by the manual transmission. No one wants to keep manual transmissions on options lists more than we do, but this one needs some work.
(Update 2/25: This version of the article removes references to the manual transmission being sourced from Aisin. That company provides the Regal Turbo’s automatic.)
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q1/2011_buick_regal_cxl_turbo_manual-short_take_road_test
The front-drive Saturn Astra is nimble, roomy, comfortable, versatile, thrifty, and affordable—but that’s not what’s really remarkable about this new compact hatchback.
What’s remarkable is that all these positive attributes come through essentially unfiltered from the Opel Astra, which is what you’d be calling this vehicle if you lived in Europe.
The only differences between the Astra built by GM’s German subsidiary for sale in Europe and this new Saturn edition are its badges, minor exterior trim, a rear-seat cup holder, and tuning for U.S. emissions standards.
Well, okay, there’s the matter of choices. The Opel Astra comes in more body styles and offers a number of additional powertrain options, including diesels.
Only a Hatchback, and Only One Engine
Our Saturn Astra is available only as a hatchback—three or five doors—with one engine, a 138-hp, 1.8-liter Ecotec four, and a choice of a five-speed manual or optional four-speed automatic transmission.
Nevertheless, the fact that a car attuned to European dynamic standards is hitting U.S. showrooms with no softening or other compromises imposed by product planners with some misconceived notion of what’s best for American drivers is a good thing. Not to mention rare.
We’d like to report that the reason for this restraint by Saturn was some new and enlightened perception of what’s really important in terms of ride and handling, but that’s not really the case.
The reason for this unexpurgated treatment—this naturalized American with a distinct German accent—was much more pragmatic. Saturn marketing execs wanted the Astra in showrooms ASAP, to shore up its small-car market presence in the wake of the ill-conceived
.
Consequently, haste, amplified by cost containment, was paramount. Getting a federalized Astra ready for market took less than 21 months, and it follows that any tinkering with the car would only add to the lead time, as well as the project’s cost.
This explains the single engine choice. The Saturn people knew they’d need an automatic-transmission option for the car in the U.S., but the only engine that offered that choice in Europe was the 1.8-liter. End of discussion.
That leaves the Astra at a power disadvantage versus its target hatchback competitors, the
and the . (Saturn would like us to forget the
as a competitor, for obvious reasons.)
The Mazda 3 is similar in mass to the Astra (about 2800 pounds), but the Mazda’s 2.3-liter four delivers 156 horsepower.
The Rabbit is heavier—more than 3000 pounds—but its standard 2.5-liter five-cylinder is rated at 170 horsepower.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/07q4/2008_saturn_astra-first_drive_review