Sc 430 Sc430, 125 Pt Insp & Svc'd, Warranty, Pebble Beach Edition! Clean 1 Own!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lexus might introduce an all-electric successor to the CT hatchback

Despite sales of the Lexus CT hybrid hatchback ending last year in the U.S., Lexus isn't planning to abandon the hatchback segment in favor of the new compact crossover, the UX. The CT remains on sale in some countries, and Lexus's European boss is adamant the brand has to keep offering hatchbacks. Talking to the British AutoExpress, Lexus's Pascal Ruch says the CT has an important purpose, which is introducing new customers to the Lexus brand. Ruch told AutoExpress that the CT has a high "conquest ratio" of 70-75 percent, and that a CT customer is different from the envisioned UX customer. "I believe that all the segments we are now in, it's important to stay there," added Ruch. AutoExpress says the CT could be replaced in 2020 with a model that would be offered both as a hybrid and as all-electric, built on Toyota's new TNGA global platform. The hybrid is likely to be the 177-horsepower 2.0-liter unit seen in the new European Auris, which corresponds to the new U.S. market Corolla Hatchback. The CT's successor could be sold as both a conventional hatchback and a more crossover-like version, much like the new Ford Focus and its Active trim level; Ruch says Lexus is thinking through a new approach for the CT. The CT was introduced way back in 2011, selling some 15,000-17,000 examples per year in the U.S. until its first really weak year, 2016, which saw less than 9,000 cars sold. The following year, which proved to be its last model year in the United States, sales dropped under 4,700. In Europe, it's different for Lexus: The brand overall sells only some 45,000 cars per year, and the CT's steady sales of more than 8,000 cars per year are quite important for it. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Genesis wins J.D. Power Tech Experience Study for third straight time

The results are out for the J.D. Power 2023 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study, which "focuses on the user experience with advanced vehicle technology as it first comes to market and is an early measure of problems encountered by vehicle owners." Its measurement metric is problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), same as with the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS). The takeaway this year isn't that owners aren't using advanced technologies, as was the case with the 2022 study, or that they're having more problems with them overall. It's that owners of battery-electric vehicles are having more problems with advanced tech than owners of ICE-powered vehicles. According to the study, 17 of 21 features that can be had on both propulsion types — such as remote parking assistance and gesture controls — get lower satisfaction ratings by owners of BEVs, in some cases nearly 20 PP100.  The survey organization says this tracks with what its found in the IQS, where total vehicle problems were "46% higher among BEVs (excluding Tesla) than ICE vehicles and satisfaction is lower among owners of BEVs across nine of 10 APEAL categories than among owners of ICE vehicles." Findings regarding biometric measurements are among those that go against the overall study findings. Whether a fingerprint reader or an eye tracker, car owners in general said "they do not consider them to be useful." In terms of ease-of-use and satisfaction, plug-and-charge capability on EVs gets good marks. This allows EV owners to plug into a public charger and have payment taken care of automatically; the vehicle communicates with any charging station compatible with an automaker's plug-and-play system, so the vehicle can automatically submit a bill for the charging session to a central owner account with no further action needed at the station. Survey respondents noted a mere 6 PP100 and an 88.9% satisfaction.    Among manufacturers, repeat winners took the top prizes. Genesis earned the highest rank for innovation overall and among premium brands for the third straight year. Hyundai not only won the tech innovation banner for mass market brands for the fourth straight year, ahead of Kia, GMC, Ram and Subaru, Hyundai finished in second in the overall standings. On that overall chart, the top five are Genesis, Hyundai, Cadillac, Lexus and BMW. On the premium chart, Genesis is followed by Cadillac, Lexus, BMW and Mercedes-Benz in the top five. It wasn't close from the first to the rest, though.

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.