No Reserve 2009 Lincoln Mkx Awd 3.5l Loaded Flood Damage Rebuildable Salvage on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Lincoln Corsair vs 2020 Cadillac XT4 | How they compare on paper

The 2020 Lincoln Corsair compact crossover was introduced this year to replace the aging MKC. Our first impressions are that it's a thoroughly competent luxury machine, but where it fits in the market is interesting. Given its size and price tag, the Corsair basically slots in-between compact segments, with vehicles like the Audi Q3 below and Audi Q5 above. It's a distinctive position to be in, but not a unique one, as there's another comparably sized and priced SUV -- and an American rival, no less. The Cadillac XT4 was launched just last year to be its company's smallest crossover, boasting compelling design and ample technology features.  So which is better? To give you some idea, let's take a look at each vehicle's horsepower, torque, fuel economy, space, pricing and some slightly more subjective aspects about their luxuriousness and feature sets. You'll find all the nitty gritty numbers below, followed by more detailed analysis. And if you'd like to compare other luxury crossovers, be sure to check out our comparison tool. Engines, drivetrains and driving impressions Both the Corsair and XT4 come standard with turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines, but the Corsair's is more potent with 250 horsepower and 275 pound-feet compared with the 237 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of the Cadillac. And to seal the deal, the Corsair has an optional turbo 2.3-liter engine with 280 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. That's not only vastly better than the Cadillac, but one of the most powerful outputs in the compact luxury SUV segment. Both vehicles have standard front-wheel drive with optional all-wheel drive on the base engines. The 2.3-liter Corsair has all-wheel drive standard. The Cadillac does boast an extra cog in its transmission over the Corsair's eight-speed automatic, but there's not necessarily an advantage or disadvantage to be gleaned from that. When it coes to fuel economy, the Cadillac is victorious with a 26 mpg combined rating for the front-drive model, with the front-drive 2.0-liter Corsair coming just behind with 25 mpg combined. It's a three-way tie for third with the all-wheel-drive XT4, all-wheel-drive 2.0-liter Corsair and 2.3-liter Corsair all returning 24 mpg combined. Of course, the all-wheel-drive Corsairs have a small advantage here in that it delivers more power and torque than the Cadillac with the same fuel economy.

2021 Lincoln Nautilus scores Top Safety Pick rating from IIHS

A new set of standard headlights has lifted the 2021 Nautilus to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick nod, Lincoln and the IIHS announced Wednesday.  The rating accounts for an improved set of LED projector headlights that were made available for 2021. IIHS says the new hardware significantly reduces glare, improving their score dramatically. The upgraded lamps are offered on Black Label models and Reserve models equipped with Ultimate package, provided they were assembled after March of this year. Since the standard headlights are still saddled with a "Poor" rating, the Nautilus doesn't qualify for Top Safety Pick+; IIHS reserves that designation for vehicles that ace all of its crashworthiness, score an "Advanced" or better in its accident avoidance tests, and come equipped with "Acceptable" or better headlights on all available trims.  Both the standard and optional safety systems on the Nautilus scored high marks, and it received the highest possible rating in each crash test.  Related Video This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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.