2010 Lexus Is 350c on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Driving the 2024 Lexus GX and Land Rover Defender 130 | Autoblog Podcast #818

In this episode of the Autoblog Podcast, Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore is joined by Senior Editor James Riswick. We kick off the week by reviewing cars we've been driving, including the new Lexus GX, Land Rover Defender 130 Outbound, Jaguar F-Pace, Hyundai Kona and our long-term Subaru WRX. Next, we break down the best wagons of the 21st century, before discussing the Audi Sport RS6 GT. Finally, we discuss a bit of the 2024 Chicago Auto Show. Send us your questions for the Mailbag and Spend My Money at: Podcast@Autoblog.com. Autoblog Podcast #818 Get The Podcast Apple Podcasts – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes Spotify – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast on Spotify RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Rundown Cars we're driving 2024 Lexus GX 2024 Land Rover Defender 130 2024 Jaguar F-Pace 2024 Hyundai Kona Long-term 2023 Subaru WRX Audi reveals the ultra-limited 2025 RS 6 GT 2024 Chicago Auto Show Feedback Email – Podcast@Autoblog.com Review the show on Apple Podcasts Autoblog is now live on your smart speakers and voice assistants with the audio Autoblog Daily Digest. Say “Hey Google, play the news from Autoblog” or "Alexa, open Autoblog" to get your favorite car website in audio form every day. A narrator will take you through the biggest stories or break down one of our comprehensive test drives. Related video: 2024 Lexus GX 550 Overtrail is a more capable off-roader and looks the part

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

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.