Hse Suv 3.2l Cd Awd Keyless Start Traction Control Stability Control Abs on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford's J Mays feels vindicated by Fusion reception

It's hard to think back now, but the same man overseeing the design of the 2013 Ford Fusion also presided over a rather lackluster period in Ford design, highlighted by vehicles like the Five Hundred and Freestyle. With the redesigned Fusion receiving high praise, J Mays tells Automotive News that he feels vindicated from criticisms suggesting he's not a daring enough designer.
When Mays took over as lead of design in 1997, he admits to having quite an ego ("My head would barely fit through the door some days. I've long since gotten over myself") and the workload to match. With the Blue Oval's portfolio full of premium brands like Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo at that point, along with the bread-and-butter Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models, Mays certainly had quite the challenge.
It was in the mid-2000s that Mays took over just the premium brands, and took on the new title of Chief Creative Officer. At the time, Mays endured some criticism for looking backwards to retro styling, rather than setting a new standard for American car design - criticism that Mays says he is free from with the all-new Fusion.

Weekly Recap: Chrysler forges ahead with new name, same mission

Chrysler is history. Sort of. The 89-year-old automaker was absorbed into the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles conglomerate that officially launched this fall, and now the local operations will no longer use the Chrysler Group name. Instead, it's FCA US LLC. Catchy, eh? Here's what it means: The sign outside Chrysler's Auburn Hills, MI, headquarters says FCA (which it already did) and obviously, all official documents use the new name, rather than Chrysler. That's about it. The executives, brands and location of the headquarters aren't changing. You'll still be able to buy a Chrysler 200. It's just made by FCA US LLC. This reinforces that FCA is one company going forward – the seventh largest automaker in the world – not a Fiat-Chrysler dual kingdom. While the move is symbolic, it is a conflicting moment for Detroiters, though nothing is really changing. Chrysler has been owned by someone else (Daimler, Cerberus) for the better part of two decades, but it still seemed like it was Chrysler in the traditional sense: A Big 3 automaker in Detroit. Now, it's clearly the US division of a multinational industrial empire; that's good thing for its future stability, but bittersweet nonetheless. Undoubtedly, it's an emotion that's also being felt at Fiat's Turin, Italy, headquarters as the company will no longer officially be called Fiat there. Digest that for a moment. What began in 1899 as the Societa Anonima Fabbrica Italiana di Automobili Torino – or FIAT – is now FCA Italy SpA. In a statement, FCA said the move "is intended to emphasize the fact that all group companies worldwide are part of a single organization." The new names are the latest changes orchestrated by CEO Sergio Marchionne, who continues to makeover FCA as an international automaker that has ties to its heritage – but isn't tied down by it. Everything from the planned spinoff of Ferrari, a new FCA headquarters in London and the pending demise of the Dodge Grand Caravan in 2016 has shown that the company is willing to move quickly, even if it's controversial. While renaming the United States and Italian divisions were the moves most likely to spur controversy, FCA said other regions across the globe will undergo similar name changes this year. Despite the mixed emotions, it's worth noting: The name of the merged company that oversees all of these far-flung units is Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Obviously the Chrysler corporate name isn't completely history.

Range Rover versus Mercedes-Benz: Which makes a more appealing SUV?

From time to time — truth be told, all the time — the Autoblog staff enjoys a good debate on the merits and demerits of the cars and trucks we drive each week. This week, we spent some time in a brand-new Land Rover Range Rover Supercharged SUV, a model some of us think sits at the pinnacle of the luxury utility vehicle segment. Others disagree. The following is a real-life online debate that took place over the course of a few hours. Have a read, and feel free to take sides. There's a poll at the end so you can make your voice heard. Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: Strange as it may sound, Jeremy Clarkson and I have a few things in common, most obvious of which is that we share a given name. But we also both love cars so much that we decided to turn our automotive passion into a career — with varying degrees of success, of course — and we both have come to realize over time that there's no point in trying to topple the Land Rover Range Rover as the world's best luxury off-road utility vehicle. Thing is, this universal truth isn't quite as universally shared as I think it should be. In fact, my esteemed colleague Alex Kierstein believes that Mercedes-Benz makes the most desirable four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles. He's clearly wrong, but I feel obligated to let him explain his choice, though it won't go without a rebuttal. Senior Editor Alex Kierstein: That's correct, and so am I in this regard. I'm sorry, Jeremy, but it's an irrefutable fact that Mercedes-Benz is doing the best interiors in the business now. And the interior is where you're going to spend most of your time, at least when the thing's running. The Range Rover's interior simply isn't as special, and frankly it'll be in the shop enough that you won't enjoy it. Now, stepping into pretty much any contemporary Mercedes sedan interior is a "wow" moment. They seem special — posh, exclusive, luxurious. The SUVs, all older vehicles coming due for total redesigns at some point in the future, are lagging a bit, but it's still a premium and upscale experience. Especially since performance is almost academic at this point. Anything in this class is going to be powerful, almost absurdly so. So why not go for the one that makes you feel like royalty, rather than your mechanic? JK: I just want to point out that it was you who brought reliability into this discussion.