Goodwood Edition Built By Rolls-royce **very Rare** on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mini Superleggera gets the green light

With the fairly lackluster designs coming out of Mini recently, leave it to a group from outside the company to get things right. The minds behind the Berlinetta Lusso and Disco Volante at Touring Superleggera did just that with the retro-inspired Mini Superleggera Vision Concept from last year's Villa d'Este Concours d'Elegance. Now, according to Car in the UK, the droptop has a green light for production from the BMW board and could arrive in showrooms by 2018. The concept stole our hearts with its rounded shape, rear fin and Union-Jack-shaped taillights. Inside, the interior went for extreme minimalism with an aluminum dashboard that positioned just a simple tachometer and thin steering wheel in front of the driver. The production version reportedly rides on the third-gen Mini platform but retains all of the concept's major styling elements. In place of the electric motor, expect the current engine offerings with a 1.5-liter three-cylinder and a 2.0-liter four-cylinder available under the hood. Patent documents might provide an even better hint at what to expect. They also show the design not changing much, other than the lights no longer in the grille, a framed windshield and slightly smaller fin. The Union Jack taillights remain, though. Peter Schwarzenbauer, BMW Group member in charge of Mini, asserted the company was testing the waters for production shortly after the Superleggera's debut. At the time, the price was speculated to be around 35,000 euros if the car arrived on the market in Europe. Related Video:

2016 Mini Cooper Convertible First Drive

Conventional gearhead wisdom says to go for the biggest, most powerful engine. For the first two generations of Mini Convertible, this was a no-brainer. You bought the Cooper S. But as Senior Editor Alex Kierstein argued in our first drive of the Cooper S soft top, the less-powerful Cooper Convertible has an ace up its sleeve: a highly entertaining, three-cylinder, turbocharged engine. After some time behind the wheel, this two-time Mini Cooper S (hardtop) owner is ready to say the Cooper Convertible is the droptop Mini you should buy, full stop. The Cooper's 1.5-liter turbocharged three-cylinder makes just 134 ponies and 162 pound-feet of torque. That's a 55-horsepower deficit and an extra 1.5 seconds, compared to the Cooper S. But who's clocking a Mini Convertible with a stopwatch? The 8.2 seconds it takes to get to 60 mph is perfectly adequate , and the triple's power delivery is addictive. Peak torque comes in at 1,250 rpm, making for effortless acceleration around town. The engine is positively diesel-like in the way it generates twist below 4,000 rpm, and the way it runs out of steam well before its 6,500-rpm redline. But this isn't annoying. There's more than enough torque to make the Cooper's acceleration sprightly around town. Think about it this way: The Cooper S' 2.0-liter turbo has enough power to rescue you from bad driving. But because of the turbo lag and the wheezy top end, the base Cooper forces you to manage your momentum. In that way, it's not unlike the Mazda MX-5, Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ, and other so-called "momentum cars," that require drivers to maintain speed for a good corner exit. That, friends, is fun. But some of the car's shortcomings are less fun. We praised the triple's "offbeat, enticing growl" in our first drive, but this is still a three-cylinder engine and it vibrates like one. There's a diesel-like clatter from the direct-injection system on cold starts. And when rolling off the line at part throttle, the triple sends a weird vibration right to our hips. It disappears quickly as the speed increases, but the sensation is consistent enough to be annoying. Aside from the interesting powerplant, the best driving goodies aren't reserved only for the Cooper S. Tick the right boxes, and the regular Cooper can fit the adaptive dampers we raved about on the Cooper S first drive – Dynamic Damper Control is a $500 standalone option or included in the $1,750 Sport Package.

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