1974 2002 Bmw on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Old vs. new debate gets new life with $25,000 Fiesta ST vs. E46 M3 showdown

You know who you are. There's probably a few of you reading; the ones that say, "Why would I spend $27,000 on a new Mazda MX-5 when I could get a used Chevrolet Corvette with more power." Yes, we're talking to you, used car proponents. While it is a fair argument, it's not like used cars don't come with drawbacks of their own, though.
In an attempt to put this new-versus-used argument to bed once and for all, Matt Farah of the The Smoking Tire has picked up a pair of $25,000 cars - a used, but lightly modified, 2003 BMW M3 and a 2013 Ford Fiesta ST. Naturally, there's a comparison.
Farah, as he's wont to do, does get into the nitty gritty of what each car is like to drive, and discusses the merits of used and new-car shopping. But as he rightly points out while testing the M3, "So, it is a good car. But like any used car, it really does depend on the individual car."

The importance of Angel Eyes, Ventiports and four round taillights

Just the other day, we told you about how Lincoln isn't really a luxury brand, according to Ford's head design man, J Mays. His argument was that Lincoln lacked the unique DNA to differentiate it from the rest of the market, although the arrival of the MKZ is beginning to change that. Now, we have this video from Autoline Detroit, where Jim Hall, an analyst for 2953 Analytics who was quoted in yesterday's Lincoln story, explains the influence of certain styling cues and how they impact the brands.
Using BMW (Angel Eyes) and Buick (Ventiports) as examples for small, simple touches that serve to distinguish the brand's vehicles on the road, Hall then points out how changing trademark styling features, as Chevrolet has done on the new Corvette Stingray, can hurt the vehicle's public perception. Take a look at the full video below for an interesting dive into what these styling features mean to their individual brands.

2013 BMW 135is Coupe

BMW's Best 1 Series Gives Back What You Put In
Every once in a while, I find myself, despite my solitary leanings and inherent modesty, working out in some kind of class setting. The tone and tenor of these classes ranges wildly - from the quiet, follow-the-leader variety, to those with a kind of Cult of Personality man or woman calling the shots, usually with idiom-laden shouting and theatrical hair. Despite their personal variation and range of professional effectiveness, there's one common concept that most instructors bring up at some point: working with intention.
The idea, as it relates to physical fitness, is that focusing your brain on the movement at hand ­- the rate of your own breathing, or the muscle groups being worked for instance - helps to perform the act efficiently and correctly. Having spent a happy majority of the last decade in an exercise-free near-debauch, I was a bit surprised to find out that this kind of mental game really works pretty well.