1987 Xj6 Used 4.2l I6 24v Automatic Rwd Sedan on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.

Jaguar working on 700-hp, 200-mph hybrid F-Type?

After first driving the 2014 Jaguar F-Type in Spain this spring, we came away mighty impressed. Of course, if you had to pin us down for a top three wish list of what improvements we'd like to see, we'd probably hit you with something like: 1) Less weight. 2) Less weight and 3) Less weight. Oh, and if we're feeling presumptuous, maybe some additional transmission choices.
Despite leveraging aluminum for the body and chassis, this Jaguar is still a bit of a fat cat compared to its rival models from Porsche. We never felt like it was lacking for power in any of its three supercharged trims, least of them the 495-horsepower V8 S, which is a genuine madman. We knew the variants would come, though - a quick look at the rest of Jag's lineup provides all the evidence you need of that. And so we're not surprised to see word of a hyper-powered F-Type on the horizon, an R-S version. What is surprising, however, is a new report that put its motivation at over 700 horsepower and its top speed at 200+ mph. Us? We're just hoping the latter figure comes at least partially as a result of a hardcore diet.
This F-Type R-S news comes according to the rumormongers at AutoExpress, who expect the high-power Brit to come in coupe form, at least initially. We still haven't seen the debut of the fixed-head F, but plenty of spy shots suggest its arrival is imminent. Wildly, AE posits that Jag won't look for more displacement to gain power, it will instead radically downsize by using a 1.6-liter turbo- and supercharged four-cylinder and an array of electric motors. If that sounds familiar, that's because AE suggests the high-tech powertrain will be scavenged from the defunct C-X75 supercar program (interestingly, earlier reports suggested this combination would only deliver about 500 horsepower).

The diesel premium in our Jaguar XE quickly pays for itself

Our long-term 2017 Jaguar XE 20d AWD recently returned from a 2,000-mile road trip. My wife and I took a few days to visit her family in Auburn, Alabama, and it was the first real chance anyone has had to stretch the Jaguar's legs outside of Michigan. It was also a good opportunity to see what sort of fuel economy I could wring out of the XE's 2.0-liter turbocharged diesel. The diesel engine was the main reason I chose it over our equally lovely long-term 2017 Audi A4. For me, chasing fuel economy is a great way to stay focused on the road. The XE 20d AWD is rated at 30 city/40 highway and 34 combined. The drive to and from Auburn is almost entirely highway, so I knew matching the highway rating would be easy enough. The XE has a 14.8 gallon tank, so I was looking at a minimum of 600 miles per tank and four fills for the trip, counting the initial pre-departure fill. I had two main concerns: first, this was a new route, so I didn't know how available diesel would be along I-75; second, crossing the Appalachian Mountains was going to severely cut into my overall average. The first worry turned out to be a nonissue, especially as we went further south. Not once was I forced to go from station to station looking for a lone green-handled pump. People in the South love their Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax-powered trucks, meaning diesel pumps were plentiful. Rolling up in a Jaguar does garner attention, though. An older gentleman even asked if I knew that I was putting diesel in the car. It seems he didn't have much faith in my reading comprehension skills. The mountains were more of a problem. There was literally no getting around them, but were west of the highest parts, so it could have been worse. The indicated fuel economy dropped by 4 mpg on the way up, from 47 mpg to 43. Still, I managed more than 650 miles from a tank, though I was starting to push my luck. We filled up for the short final leg. By the time we rolled into Auburn, the display indicated 44 mpg – pretty damn good, I'd say. It held there for the entire trip. Calculating the actual mileage revealed the computer was generous by 2 mpg, but that's par for the course. Few automakers display precise numbers. The relative ease of getting this sort of fuel economy was complemented by the price of diesel. At each one of my four stops, diesel cost less than premium, the required fuel in all of the XE's gasoline engines. According to AAA, the same is true nationwide.