2002 Lexus Sc430 Convertible Nav Htd Leather 18's 84k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford barely edges surging Chrysler for Canadian sales crown in best year ever

The auto industry in the US showed strong results through much of 2014 with sales regularly growing year-over-year for many brands. That same trend carried over in the Great White North, as well. Canada posted its best numbers ever with 1.85 million units sold, up about 100,000 vehicles over 2013. The country nearly had a new market leader, too. The big winner among our neighbors to the north in 2014 was Ford with 291,951 vehicles sold, up 3 percent from 2013, according to Reuters. That success also handed the company the sales crown for the fifth consecutive year. In large part, the strong result came from the company's popular trucks, which represented about 80 percent of overall sales. "Ford moved into the number one position in September and didn't look back," said a note to clients by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants quoted by Reuters. However, the Blue Oval didn't exactly take an overwhelming lead for the year. The company nearly had to hand over the sales trophy to FCA after the company rallied in the latter part of the year. The Italian-American conglomerate had its best results ever to nip at the Ford's heels and move 290,004 units for 2014, a 12-percent improvement from last year. Jeep especially helped the bottom line with over 50-percent growth, according to Reuters. Only two other brands were able to break the 200,000-vehicle barrier in Canada for 2014. General Motors came in third place overall with 249,800 sales, up 6.3 percent. The combined Toyota and Lexus also barely jumped the hurdle with 200,851 units moved, a 2.8 percent improvement.

Google shares more details on self-driving car accidents

Google has pledged to release monthly reports on the status of its self-driving car program, and says these updates will include information on accidents involving the vehicles. But the company won't release the actual accident reports, a sore point for activists who recently have clamored for the company to be more transparent in the way it tests this promising technology on public roads. "Google is dribbling out bits of information in the hope to silence legitimate calls for full transparency," said John Simpson, privacy director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has asked Google to release reports from the 12 accidents the company says it has been involved in over the past six years. "They are testing on public roads, and the public has a right to know exactly what happened when something goes wrong." Under California law, the accident reports are not considered public records. Google has attributed all accidents to human error, and says drivers of the other cars involved caused 11 of the 12 accidents. In eight of those, the Google cars were rear-ended, and the autonomous vehicles were sideswiped in two other crashes. One of the accidents occurred at an intersection when a human driver failed to yield at a stop sign, and in one incident, a Google driver accidentally rear-ended another car while manually driving. Google had previously provided those details. The first monthly report installment sheds new light on which types of self-driving vehicles were involved, directions of travel, locations, and whether the cars were operating in autonomous or manual mode. Update: Google says this information comes directly from the OL 316 forms used to report accidents involving autonomous cars in California, though it has "edited the summaries lightly to protect other drivers' information." But Google still will not release the original OL 316 forms, nor the "traffic collision report" forms used in California to report accidents. Another company that has been involved in a single self-driving car accident, Delphi Automotive, has released this information, which verified its car was not at fault. Regarding Google, Simpson said, "We now know a few more details of what happened. The problem is that it's Google's version and they want us to take their word for it." The Google self-report adds information that goes beyond accidents, with further details on the company's overall program.

2015 Lexus RC F Review

Every year, thousands of people buy two-door coupes that bear the badges of BMW M, Mercedes-AMG, Audi RS, and Cadillac V. These cars are powerful, fast, agile, and - if you believe the marketing - are made to kick ass on the track. But, and this is just my theory, only about 0.2 percent of these owners actually drive their cars the way the companies intended. Most buyers, I think, want the image put forth by an M4 or C63 AMG more than any dynamic abilities. These people just want to give the impression that they're out tearing up the local road course, and a $70,000 sports coupe and a pair of Pilotis are just the ticket. Which is not to say they don't use the performance of these cars, just not the full track-day capabilities. If this describes you, I recommend checking out the new Lexus RC F. This coupe is powered by a 5.0-liter V8, complete with 467 horsepower and 389 pound-feet of torque. These figures, while impressive in a vacuum, are troubling when viewed alongside the competition. The Mercedes-AMG C63 tops 500 in horsepower and torque in S guise, while the six-pot Cadillac ATS-V is nearly equal on power but offers almost 60 more pound-feet of torque. And while the BMW M4 cedes more than 40 horsepower to the Lexus, the RC F doesn't feel as potent from the driver's seat. The RC F doesn't even feel as potent as less-powerful competition. This numerical deficit translates to the stopwatch, where the RC F lags behind the force-induced competition. The C63 and ATS-V both hit 60 in 3.9 seconds, while the BMW takes 4.1 seconds (these are all manufacturer estimates, by the way). The RC F needs 4.4 seconds to hit 60 miles per hour. The only vehicle in this segment that's slower is the Audi RS 5, and that's been on sale longer than all its current competitors combined. And the Audi's charms (oh, that glorious engine note) help you overlook its lack of pace. The RC F doesn't have the aging Audi's charisma, making its lack of both perceived and actual pace more glaring. I'm placing blame on this car's overbearing induction sound. It was a neat trick on the original IS F – this car's predecessor – but over the years it's just become kind of played out. At the least the noise is real, piped into the cabin via a resonator, but it sounds too artificial. And the point at which it kicks in is entirely predictable. Neither of these traits contribute to an involving driving experience.