2010 Lexus Gs350 Awd Leather Sunroof Nav Rear Cam 28k! 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.

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.