2013 Jaguar Xf I4 Rwd**sunroof**navi**camera**portfolio Pack** on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Nissan Truck-a-Palooza | Autoblog Podcast #483

Episode #483 of the Autoblog Podcast is here. This week, Dan Roth, Alex Kierstein, and Michael Austin talk about the jam-packed Autoblog Garage, Alex Kierstein's time with several new Nissan trucks including the 2017 Armada, and we wrap it up trying to spend your money. Check it out! Check out the rundown with times for topics, and thanks for listening! Autoblog Podcast #483 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics 2017 Nissan Armada In The Autoblog Garage 2016 Audi R8 V10 Plus 2016 Jaguar XJR 2016 Jaguar XE Diesel 2016 Jaguar F-Pace 2016 Chevrolet Cruze Premier 2016 Kia Sedona SXL 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage GT Hosts: Dan Roth, Michael Austin, Alex Kierstein Rundown Intro & Garage - 00:00 Nissan Trucks - 19:39 Q&A - 29:38 Total Duration: 40:19 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Audi Jaguar Mitsubishi Nissan

Jaguar Land Rover might buy another luxury brand that it doesn't need

It seems that Jaguar Land Rover may be getting bigger in the near future. According to Bloomberg, the company is looking at acquiring some tech companies, and possibly yet another luxury car brand, provided that it fits with the current lineup of cars. On the surface, this makes some sense since Bloomberg reports that a whopping 78 percent of Tata Motors' revenue comes from luxury brands. And of course, any kind of tech acquisition could be useful considering the rapid development of electric and autonomous vehicles. But dig a little deeper, and a possible luxury brand acquisition just doesn't make sense for Jaguar Land Rover. The main reason for this is that the Jaguar and Land Rover brands have the luxury market thoroughly covered. Both brands offer full luxury lines from entry-level to high-end ( Discovery Sport to Range Rover on the Land Rover side, and XE to XJ on the Jaguar side). They also cater to every kind of luxury, from sporty vehicles such as the F-Type and SVR Land Rovers, to cushy luxury machines such as the XJ and Range Rover. So whether the company is competing with BMW or Mercedes, Jaguar and Land Rover have the bases covered. There aren't any other typical luxury brands that would actually add anything to the current lineup. In fact, adding another conventional luxury brand could actually result in the new brand poaching existing Jaguar and Land Rover buyers, rather than picking up new ones. What would make more sense for Jaguar Land Rover would be to pick up either a more mainstream brand, or an ultra-luxury marque. Neither Jaguar nor Land Rover has something that competes directly with the likes of Ford or Toyota in the mainstream game, or Rolls-Royce or Bentley at the top of the luxury heap. Picking up a brand in one of these segments would allow JLR and Tata Motors to actually expand offerings and pick up more sales, rather than having an internal competitor. What path would be ideal? Probably going even farther upmarket. Supercar makers and ultra-luxury brands continue to sell well, and there's the potential for significant profit by layering on features and content to existing platforms. Perhaps the best possibility for a high-end complement to Jaguar Land Rover would be Aston Martin. Not only does it have a strong reputation and line-up, it also could handle both supercars and luxury sedans, thanks to its Lagonda sub brand. Of course it would require Aston Martin to be receptive to a purchase.

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.