2005 Bmw 645ci on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Sunday Drive: Tracking Tokyo's top performers

The big news of the week mostly came from Tokyo. All of Japan's biggest automakers made waves at the Motor Show, but the winner of the event has to be Mazda. The big Vision Coupe and little Kai Concept stole the show, won our hearts, and earned a ton of attention for the automaker. We can't wait to see how these two concepts impact the design, engineering, and technology of future production models. Take a look at our mega image gallery post below to see everything in high-resolution glory. Interestingly, the single biggest click-magnet of the 2017 Tokyo Motor Show was the BMW X2. We shouldn't be surprised. Crossovers of all shapes and sizes dominate the American marketplace, and the X2 is clearly the most attractive of BMW's even-numbered, coupe-influenced X models. Plus, it's headed for production, with sales starting in the spring of 2018. Moving past the Tokyo Motor Show, Autoblog readers are apparently very interested in the 2019 Chevy Camaro. Spy shots of just about every iteration of Chevy's muscle car lit up the 'net last week, leaving us very interested in seeing what's hiding behind all that camouflage. As always, tune in to Autoblog next week for a front-row seat to all the happenings worth following in the automotive industry. 2017 Tokyo Motor Show | Mega Gallery Mazda Vision Coupe | Tokyo Motor Show's big, sensuous 4-door Mazda Kai concept hints at a more muscular, refined Mazda3 2018 BMW X2 crossover revealed, adorned in gold and silver 2019 Chevrolet Camaro: 1LT, SS, ZL1 all spied with updated styling

Jaguar Land Rover to drop supercharged V8 for turbocharged BMW power

There are few things that sound as good as Jaguar's 5.0 liter supercharged V8. As great as it is when the supercharger whines or the exhaust cracks and pops on throttle lift-off as the air pressure equalizes, the basic design dates back to the '90s. Plainly, the engine isn't as efficient as it needs to be, but designing a new V8 from the ground up is an expensive proposition. Instead, Automobile reports that Jaguar Land Rover is set to use a twin-turbocharged V8s supplied by BMW. Scalable architecture is all the rage as automakers streamline designs in order to save costs. For example, Jaguar's current supercharged V6 is quite literally a V8 with two holes missing. They didn't even change the length of the block. It seems both of those designs are on their way out, with the V6 being replaced by a inline-six closely related to the company's inline four. It seems that rather than designing an new and expensive V8 for their top of the line models JLR, is sourcing from BMW. From 1994 to 2000, BMW owned Land Rover. A few models, including the Land Rover Range Rover, used BMW engines then and in the initial years of Ford's JLR stewardship. It seems things have now come full circle. BMW currently makes a twin-turbo 4.4 liter V8 that produces anywhere from 440 to 600 horsepower, depending on the application. Automobile says that a new 4.0 liter V8 is in the works and that it will most likely be the engine that JLR uses. Expect it to be more powerful, more fuel efficient, and lighter than what both BMW and JLR currently offer. This seems like a win for both companies. BMW gets to offset the cost of a new motor while JLR, a smaller company, doesn't have to invest in a whole new architecture. As automakers search for ways to cut costs, expect collaborations like this to continue. Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz both share a four-cylinder engine. Ford and GM have worked together to design a shared 10-speed automatic. While we may lament the loss of that wonderful Jaguar Land Rover engine, we can still be happy that they haven't abandoned the V8. Related Video: News Source: Automobile Rumormill BMW Jaguar Land Rover

Electric living with a BMW i3

Rarely in the 27-plus years I've been testing and writing about cars has any vehicle changed this much from my initial impression until I was later able to spend more time in one. Nearly two years ago, I got a brief test drive of the then-new BMW i3 EV on a selection of both flat and hilly, curvy roads west of Los Angeles the day before LA Auto Show press days. My impressions at the time were mixed: polarizing exterior and interior designs but roomy, easily accessible rear cabin; great twisty road handling but somewhat brittle rough-road ride; good performance but annoyingly strong (always on) regenerative braking. And there was no opportunity to test one with the optional range-extender (which BMW calls a "REx") engine. So I wanted an extended experience in a REx-equipped i3, and recently got one. And, I'm here to report that, driving it for a week like I owned it, the quirky i3 soon won me over. The quirky i3 soon won me over. The $42,400 BMW EV's unique, lightweight "LifeDrive" architecture features a Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) passenger cell on an all-aluminum chassis. Powered by a 22-kWh lithium-ion battery pack, its 170-hp AC synchronous motor spins out a healthy 184-pound-feet of torque through a single-speed transmission and offers three drive modes: Comfort, Eco Pro (which BMW says adds roughly 12 percent of range) and Eco Pro+ (another 12 percent). The optional rear-mounted 647 cc (0.65-liter) in-line 2-cylinder REx engine drives an electric generator, never the wheels. It increases the sticker price to $46,250 and curb weight from 2,860 pounds to 3,130 lb., and that 270-lb. weight penalty reduces its electric-only range from 81 to 72 miles and EPA-rated combined (gas-equivalent) fuel economy from 124 to 117 MPGe, and slows its 0-60-mph acceleration from 7.0 to 7.8 sec. But it nearly doubles the i3's official EPA-rated total range from an EV-only 81 miles to an EV-plus-gasoline 150 miles. The i3 arrived (from roughly 90 miles away) with its battery depleted but an indicated 75 miles of gas-powered range remaining. Wanting to experience it REx-only at first, I drove it on a 9.6-mile local trip and found little difference in sound or performance from what I recalled from that California battery-only test drive. When I returned home, however, the indicated gas range was just 55 miles, so I had used 20 miles of projected range in less than 10 local miles. My initial impressions were good, with a few quibbles.