Factory Warranty Moonroof Turbo Bluetooth All Power Off Lease Only on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar to follow up with larger J-Pace crossover

Jaguar is about to launch its first foray into the crossover market (that's the C-X17 Concept you see above) with the upcoming debut of the F-Pace, but that won't be its last. According to the UK's Car magazine, plans are already underway to launch a bigger J-Pace crossover as well. Just as the F-Pace is set to serve as the high-riding counterpart to the XF sedan, so too would the J-Pace align itself with the upcoming new XJ – in a strategy not unlike what Mercedes is taking with its crossovers, aligning the GLE (nee M-Class) with the E-Class, the upcoming GLS (GL-Class) to the S-Class and so on. That would make the J-Pace a rival to the likes of the aforementioned GLS and Audi Q7. Tipped to launch in 2019, the Jaguar J-Pace is expected to borrow its aluminum underpinnings from the flagship Range Rover, but take a sportier, more dynamic approach than the top-of-the-line Landie. Expect V6 and V8 engines to be offered, alongside diesel and hybrid powertrain options. The J-Pace has reportedly won out over other proposals to expand the XJ family with coupe, convertible and wagon variants, as the crossover is expected to drive higher sales. Here's hoping those revenues could be poured back into those back-burnered projects, too. Related Video:

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.

Jaguar I-Pace vs. Tesla Model 3 and other EVs: How they compare on paper

The 200-mile club of electric vehicles is really growing. The most recent member is the Jaguar I-Pace, the company's first pure EV. It promises luxury, performance, style, and most important, good range. Nearly as recent is the Hyundai Kona EV, and while it doesn't promise luxury or performance like the Jaguar (it's also smaller), it does pack impressive range. With the introduction of both of these electric cars, we thought we would see how they compare against each other, and the other two big names in high-capacity electric cars: the Chevy Bolt EV and the Tesla Model 3. This isn't intended to be a direct, apples-to-apples comparison, as the four are quite different. If anything, they break into two groups: bigger and more luxurious, and smaller and less expensive. Then again, the number of vehicles with this electric range is small and comparisons to EV's with less range wouldn't be too kind to the other guys. If you want to learn more about these EVs, and compare them with other cars, be sure to check out our Car Finder and comparison tools. Horsepower and torque There is one clear winner here, and that's the Jaguar I-Pace. It packs a whopping 394 horsepower and 512 pound-feet of torque. That comes through a pair of electric motors (one at the front, another at the rear) that provide the Jag with all-wheel drive, the only one of these vehicles to offer it (at the moment). Altogether, it allows the I-Pace to have the best 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. At the other end of the spectrum is the Hyundai Kona EV. It's front-drive, like the Bolt EV, and has effectively the same amount of horsepower as the Chevy at 201 horsepower, but its 0-60-mph time is almost a second slower. And the low-range version of the Kona, excluded because it doesn't go more than 200 miles between charges, is slower still. The Tesla Model 3 is the only vehicle with rear-wheel drive, and with a 0-60 mph of 5.1 seconds for the Long Range model, it is still very quick. Range and energy use Frequently, the all-consuming question with electric cars is, "How far can I go on a charge?" And to go the farthest, you need the long-range Tesla Model 3. It can go 310 miles. It has the added advantage of being able to use the network of Tesla Supercharger stations, though they are pay-per-use with the Model 3. Even the lower capacity Model 3, with just 220 miles of range, can use these stations.