Starwood Custom! Lamborghini Leather! 22 Xd! Body Armor! Procomp Lift! Winch! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study

2016 Jeep Wrangler to ditch solid axles to save weight?

Hey, Jeep fans. If you think the idea of a funky-looking, car-based Cherokee revival is offensive, have a listen to what might be in store for the next-gen Jeep Wrangler. Automotive News is reporting that as Jeep develops the 2016 Wrangler, weight reduction is a crucial target, and the Wrangler's rugged solid axles could be sacrificed in the name of better fuel economy.
We've already heard the next Wrangler will go on a serious diet using aluminum body panels and an air suspension system, so the idea of a four-wheel independent suspension setup for this OG SUV isn't all that surprising. Besides, it's not like an independent suspension would limit the Wrangler's off-road abilities - just check out the Hummer H1. In fact, it might be the aftermarket parts companies - not Wrangler enthusiasts - who would be most disappointed by such a drastic suspension change, as the article states that the Wrangler's solid axles and coil-link suspension make it the most popular SUV for customization.
There are probably still a couple years before we'll start hearing any concrete details about the 2016 Wrangler, at which time it will be interesting to see how stricter fuel economy and crash safety regulations have been balanced with traditional Wrangler cues like its removable doors and roof and folding windshield. Let us know in the comments below if a Wrangler sans solid axles is any less of a Wrangler.

Here's what it'll take to build a Jeep Grand Cherokee Hellcat

Let's get one thing straight: We want a 707-horsepower Grand Cherokee Hellcat to happen. Badly. The latest report from Motor Authority is encouraging; the bonkers SUV supposedly has a codename, Project K, and has been given the green light for production. Fingers crossed. You might be wondering why the Trackhawk isn't already a thing. Hellcat engines exist, SRT Grand Cherokees exist, so just combine the two, right? It's not quite that easy. Here, we outline what needs to happen, why it should be the quickest Hellcat vehicle out there, and why it won't come anywhere near 200 miles per hour. How To Build A Hellcat Jeep The first engineering problem is feeding the air-intensive beast that is the 6.2-liter supercharged V8. The first engineering problem is feeding the air-intensive beast that is the 6.2-liter supercharged Hellcat V8. Breathing is important on two counts: pulling in enough air for the combustion to put out 707 hp, and then cooling the various heat exchangers once the engine is up to temperature. Dodge did it with the Charger and Challenger, it can do it with the Jeep. This is one place where the Grand Cherokee's larger frontal area might be a boon, as it gives the engineers more surfaces through which to suck air. Once you generate the 707 horsepower and 650 pound-feet of torque, it has to get to the wheels somehow. Jeep's current SRT all-wheel-drive system will at least need some beefing up to handle the torque. It could require a more complete re-engineering. We at least know the ZF-supplied eight-speed auto, used in the Dodge Hellcat models, is up to the task. The Hellcat engine should fit in the Grand Cherokee, as it's about the same size as the 6.4-liter currently in SRT Jeeps, but the Hellcat is taller because of its supercharger. The hood may need to be raised or at least resculpted for clearance, as well as to address those cooling needs. Quicker Than Everything, But Not Faster 200 mph? We're skeptical, from both a physics standpoint and a legal one. A reminder of the quick/fast distinction: quick is acceleration, fast is road speed. The Jeep's all-wheel drive will help put the Hellcat engine's power to the ground in a more manageable way than the Charger and Challenger do through just the rear wheels. That means better acceleration times than the Dodges (11.0 seconds in the quarter-mile for the Charger Hellcat, 11.2 for its Challenger sibling).