2013 Lincoln Mkx Certified Pre-owned Nav Leather Sync Bluetooth We Finance on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 BMW X7 vs luxury SUV rivals: Comparing specs and photos

Today we get our first-ever look at the first-ever 2019 BMW X7 crossover. We've actually already had our first-ever drive in an X7 Prototype. And so, we thought it appropriate to follow that up today with the first-ever X7 comparison of specs between BMW's first-ever three-row crossover with legitimate room for seven and its many high-dollar competitors. On paper, the 2019 X7 definitely seems to most closely align with the Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class. Their similar dimensions, interior space, engine choices and price would certainly imply where BMW placed the target when developing X7. We used those same elements to determine three-row vehicles likely to be cross-shopped or that should be cross-shopped. These include the Audi Q7, Land Rover Discovery, Volvo XC90 and Lincoln Navigator. Yes, the latter is a truck-based SUV as opposed to a crossover, but tell that to all the people lining out the door at the local Lincoln emporium. They do not care, and neither shall we. We also included the 2019 BMW X5, which was completely redesigned for this year and therefore not the first-ever. That makes it less appealing? Either way, lining the new X5 up with the SUV that leapfrogs it atop BMW's SUV hierarchy should provide a good idea of just how much more you get by going up a model number. Engines and model lineup Again, the X7 aligns closest with the GLS, offering a base six-cylinder in its xDrive40i model and an upgrade turbo V8 in the xDrive50i. The Mercedes engines have greater output, but the GLS still accelerates slower than the BMW. As the 2019 X5 offers the exact same engines, we would also expect the X7's fuel economy to be superior to the GLS once its estimates are announced. It should be noted, though, that the GLS offers a high-powered AMG model whereas we anticipate the X7 to offer a plug-in hybrid model comparable to the X5 upcoming xDrive45e model. The other luxury SUVs diverge in their engine choices and model lineup. The Audi Q7 offers a base turbocharged four-cylinder, as does the Volvo XC90 in its T5 model, which we left out of the above chart entirely for space reasons. That the Q7 3.0 TFSI supercharged V6 gets the same fuel economy estimates as the four-cylinder is proof positive that engine is purely around for its lower base price.

Quitting Mexico factory helps bring down Ford earnings $200 million in 2016

Ford released its 2016 earnings report this morning, and despite a fourth quarter net loss it proved to be the automaker's second most successful year ever, following record breaking numbers in 2015. Losses for the year come from a number of sources, including accounting changes and a $200 million hit for backing out of the small-car factory in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Despite the loss, come March 9 about 56,000 UAW-represented employees will receive a $9,000 profit-sharing check. That, like most of Ford's other 2016 metrics, is slightly down from the year before, but it's still the second best profit-sharing payment ever. Total net income was $4.6 billion, down $2.8 billion from 2015. Total revenue for 2016 was $151.8 billion, up $2.2 billion. Ford's earnings report lists a global market share of 7.6 percent, down a tenth from 2015. Ford's European and Asia-Pacific markets posted their best and second best pre-tax profits respectively. The South American, Middle East, and African markets all took hits because of unstable economies and other external factors. Ford expects to have another down year in 2017 as it invests in new and emerging markets and focuses more on its mobility projects.Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Ford via Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Earnings/Financials Plants/Manufacturing UAW/Unions Ford Lincoln Mexico ford earnings

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.