98 Jeep Wrangler 5.3l Chevy Vortec Conversion on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Buyers ditching expensive European sedans to buy expensive American trucks

The New York Times ended the automotive week with a story that adds numbers and context to a range of other stories, from the crossover craze to the increasing median price of a new car to ever more grandiose pickup trucks. The NYT piece reveals that the shift to larger vehicles isn't merely about the average U.S. buyer swapping the midsize sedan for a Ford Edge. Luxury buyers are migrating from plush sedans to plush SUVs and trucks that creep close to six-figure prices, and the Detroit Three are running Treasury presses because of it. From 2013 to 2017, the truck category — everything from pickups to minivans — climbed from 30 percent of the market to 41 percent. In January of this year, trucks claimed 66 percent of new vehicle sales. At the milk-and-honey end of profits, GMC alone accounted for 11.3 percent of all vehicle sales over $60,000, not just trucks. That puts the luxury truck maker behind Mercedes-Benz and Ford, The Blue Oval's feasting on Lariat, King Ranch and Raptor versions of the F-150, which make up more than half of that pickup's sales, putting it ahead of Chevrolet, Porsche and Lexus on the high-dollar sales list. The average transaction price of a GMC in Denali trim last year was $56,000; it's easy to see why, when one dealer told the NYT he just swapped a 2012 BMW 550i for a $71,000 GMC Sierra Denali. That truck starts at $52,900. The NYT started its story with a buyer who took home a Ford Raptor instead of an Audi A6, and optioned that $50,020 Ford Raptor close to $80,000. Over at Lincoln, the new $72,055 Navigator — the one so popular that Ford will increase production — crossed hands for an average sale price of $77,000 in January. And a Jeep dealer told the NYT that the two $93,000 Trackhawks he had on his lot "won't be here more than a few weeks." While trucks head up in sales volume and price, cars are headed so viciously in the opposite direction that "the Detroit Three and even some foreign manufacturers acknowledge they are now losing money on many of the cars they sell." So ... get ready for a lot more crossovers and trucks. Related Video: Find out what vehicle is right for you. Give our Car Finder tool a try.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study

Jeep idles second shift it hired a month ago for 2014 Cherokee

In an unusual move, Chrysler is idling its recently hired second shift of 2014 Jeep Cherokee builders because, Chrysler spokeswoman Jodi Tinson said in a statement, it already has built the "critical number of vehicles we need to stock dealerships once containment is released," Automotive News reports.
After the "critical" 9,430 Cherokees were built, the layoff was enacted so as not to strain the automaker's logistics partners before the Cherokee is actually released. Chrysler says the temporary layoff will last about two weeks, with 500 workers out of work and another 600 reassigned at the Toledo Assembly Complex where the sports utility vehicle was being built. The second-shift workers were hired on August 19.
Chrysler previously insisted that it would release the Cherokee to dealerships by the end of the third quarter, and it initially planned to start selling the SUVs in mid-August. Apparently the Cherokee needed a software fix before hitting showrooms, which is how Chrysler explains why the release schedule is out of whack. We're thinking that this software fix addresses the "powertrain calibration" issue that delayed the first media test drives of the model. According to the Toledo Blade, Chrysler has admitted it is doing "extended quality validation testing" but refused to provide more information.