Bmw Cpo,tech,premium,$10k In Dinan Upgrades,heated Black Novillo Leather Seats!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

Comparison test: 2019 Acura RDX vs. compact luxury SUV competitors

Truth be told, if we were to compare the all-new 2019 Acura RDX with those compact luxury crossover SUVs it would most likely be cross-shopped against, you'd be looking at a different list. Even Acura admits that Lexus and Infiniti are the most likely bogies, but with the 2019 RDX, Honda's luxury brand is attempting to attract those customers who think as much with their hearts as with their heads. And for the most part, those folks have been buying from German brands: the Audi Q5, BMW X3 and Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class. So, to show how the new RDX compares to them, Acura actually provided examples of each during the recent press drive along with a Volvo XC60. All were determined to have greater emotional appeal than the last RDX, and we would certainly agree. For, as much as the previous-generation RDX made sense on paper, it was really hard to get excited about it. And when you're paying extra for a luxury vehicle, shouldn't you get a little excited? Well, as luck would have it, Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski and I were on hand in Whistler, British Columbia, for the press launch. We didn't have an abundance of time in each RDX competitor, but in conjunction with our usual comparison chart, our impressions should provide a good first taste of how the new RDX compares. Performance and fuel economy Contributing Editor James Riswick: On paper at least, the RDX is gutsier than its comparably powered European rivals. It also weighs the same or less, which logically should mean it'll be the quickest in a straight line. During my brief drives, though, I'm not sure it really stood taller than the three Germans. It at least matches them for smoothness, which is something that can't be said about the Volvo. Fuel economy is lower than them all when you consider all but the Mercedes come standard with all-wheel drive. It's also worth noting that all the competitors are available with engine upgrades, and unless Acura's forthcoming resurrection of Type S models includes the RDX, it should stay that way. Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: Line 'em all up in a drag race, and I have a feeling the Acura would squirt away to victory. A good bit of that, though, would be due to its 10-speed automatic transmission, which offers a huge spread of ratios and fires off extremely quick shifts. In the real world, I'd guess fuel economy will be similar across the board, so I'm willing to call that category a draw.

2015 BMW X4 xDrive28i

When BMW unveiled the X6 back in 2008, critical reviews were mixed, to say the least. By all accounts, the heavyweight crossover actually drove quite well, but the idea of a BMW X5 that traded a lot of functionality for polarizing looks and a higher price tag seemed like a tough sell. Then it went on sale and quickly proved to be a cash cow. Today, the German brand has moved over a quarter million of the things worldwide. Unsurprisingly, this success has moved BMW to double down on its so-called Sport Activity Coupe by adding a smaller variant. The all-new X4, while not a bad steer in and of itself, makes even less sense than its big brother, particularly when viewed alongside BMW's other offerings. Like the X6 and X5, the X4 borrows heavily from another of the brand's utility vehicles, in this case, the less-costly X3. Also like the X6, this new crossover-coupe's styling is sure to cause a schism among critics and consumers alike. You can probably guess where the majority of the Autoblog camp falls. To be totally frank, the exterior of the X4 is simply ghastly to this writer, particularly in this tester's eye-catching paint. Admittedly – and much like the X6 – there's not much objectionable from the A-pillar forward, where the X4 has a lot in common with the X3. It's only once moving towards the rear that things well and truly go wrong. There's just so much visual mass, and it's been made worse by the way BMW designers wussed out. Bear with me. Compare the profile of the X6 with the X4, and pay particular attention to the roofline on the bigger vehicle. The angle of the roofline is noticeably more dramatic on the X6, which comes at the expense of second-row headroom (an oft-criticized area for the big boy). For the X4, designers tried to have their cake and eat it too, maintaining second-row headroom but with a coupe-like profile. The result is an X4 that is bulbous and uncouth from the B-pillar back, more hunchbacked Gran Turismo than svelte Gran Coupe. BMW might have been better served if its exterior work had followed the stylings of the cabin, which is more or less a clone of what's on offer in the X3. Material quality is still great, with soft-touch plastics and available cool-to-the-touch brushed aluminum throughout. I really dug the Ivory White Nevada leather and contrast red stitching on this test vehicle, as it provided an eye-pleasing departure from the sea of blacks, grays and tans so typical of the luxury crossover market.