Salpv1443xa414566 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.

Jaguar Land Rover opens first overseas factory in China

Anyone who's a car fan knows that Jaguar and Land Rover cars and trucks all come from the UK. And while we don't doubt that will remain true for the most part, it won't be an absolute truth for long, as the British automaker has just opened its first factory overseas.
Its new plant in Changshu, China, is the result of a $1.8-billion joint venture between JLR and local automaker Chery. It covers some 4.3-million square feet and will, once at peak capacity, produce 130,000 units specifically for the Chinese market, where JLR sells over 100,000 vehicles each year to make it the company's single largest market worldwide.
Production at what's officially known as the Chery Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Company will start with the Evoque, of which one in five globally are currently sold in China. Production will eventually encompass three models. We already know that the Discovery Sport will be next, but the third model line has yet to be announced. JLR has confirmed, however, that the Changshu plant will produce unique models and derivatives specifically for the Chinese market, so we wouldn't be surprised to see a long-wheelbase version of the forthcoming XE or next-generation XF assembled there to satisfy local tastes.

Jaguar Land Rover seeks to block U.S. imports of Porsche, Audi, Lamborghini, VW SUVs

You wouldn’t know it was about Jags and Lambos, to judge by its rather dry name: In the Matter of Certain Vehicle Control Systems. But thatÂ’s the complaint Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Plc filed on Thursday to block U.S. imports of Porsche, Lamborghini, Audi and Volkswagen sport utility vehicles it says are using its patented Terrain Response technology without permission. Jaguar Land Rover, a British carmaker owned by IndiaÂ’s Tata Motors Ltd., said in its filing with the U.S. International Trade Commission that the technology helps negotiate a “broad range of surfaces” and is a key feature in JaguarÂ’s F-Pace and Land Rover Discovery vehicles. “JLR seeks to protect itself and its United States operations from companies that have injected infringing products into the U.S. market that incorporate, without any license from JLR, technology developed by JLR and protected by its patent,” JaguarÂ’s lawyer, Matthew Moore, said in the filing. Representatives of Volkswagen didnÂ’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the complaint. Jaguar wants to block imports of PorscheÂ’s Cayenne; LamborghiniÂ’s Urus; AudiÂ’s Q8, Q7, Q5, A6 Allroad and e-tron vehicles; and VWÂ’s Tiguan vehicles. It said there are plenty of other luxury midsize SUV and compact crossover vehicles to meet consumer demand if the SUVs are banned from the U.S. Still, the premium Porsche and Audi lines provide much of the profit VW is using to fund its investments in technology for electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles and further innovations. In addition to the four brands, Volkswagen Group owns other upscale nameplates, including Bentley and Bugatti. The International Trade Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that investigates complaints of unfair trade practices, like patent infringement. It canÂ’t award damages but does have the power to block products from entering the U.S. Owners of patents and trade secrets like it because it can work faster than the federal district courts -- the typical investigation is completed in 15 to 18 months. But Jaguar also filed patent lawsuits against the companies in federal courts in Delaware and New Jersey, seeking cash compensation for the use of the technology. Those cases are likely to be put on hold once the trade commission launches its investigation. The case is In the Matter of Certain Vehicle Control Systems, 337-3508, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).