2002 Bmw X5 3.0i on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jonas wreaks havoc on auto industry

Many folks along the East Coast are still stuck at home from Winter Storm Jonas' brutal snowfall over the weekend, but the blizzard had some nasty temporary effects on the auto industry, too. Winter weather emergencies kept people from leaving the house, and that spelled trouble for factories and dealers. The terrible conditions in Washington, DC, even prevented the the Washington Auto Show from opening. General Motors, Toyota, and BMW had to close factories due to the weather. BMW cited concerns for its workers driving to the plant for canceling some Friday and Saturday shifts in Spartanburg, SC, according to Automotive News. Toyota closed its Georgetown, KY, factory on Friday, and GM shut down the second shift at its Bowling Green, KY, site for that day, too. Showrooms in the blizzard's path saw a massive drop in sales over the weekend because the customers weren't coming. Some affected dealers are now trying to make the best of a bad situation by offering potential buyers even deeper discounts to get them through the door, according to Automotive News. The piles of snow also mean hours of work for employees to clean off all the cars on the lot. The good news is that none of these issues should pose longterm problems. Weather reports don't show much snow for the East Coast in the coming days, which should allow the industry quickly to return to normal.

The troubled Alfa Romeo Giulia needs serious help [UPDATE]

UPDATE: An Alfa Romeo US spokesman responded to this article with the following statement: The safety concerns expressed in the story are false. The all-new 2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia is designed and engineered to meet or exceed all federal safety regulations. The Alfa Romeo Giulia will begin production for the North American market in the late second-quarter of this year. Alfa Romeo will have a full product portfolio of premium vehicles that includes plans for (8) all-new Alfa Romeo vehicles by 2020. The product launches are prioritized by segment volumes starting this year with the Alfa Romeo Giulia production for North America starting in late Q2, followed by the Midsize-UV – the 2nd largest premium segment in North America. Even on the day you dragged them kicking and screaming and gesticulating wildly to a table full of concrete evidence, Alfa Romeo executives will never admit the Giulia program is going through a tough patch. But it is. Reports say the Giulia, on the eve of production, didn't just fail one internal crash test, but failed the front, side and rear impact tests. Alfa denies it. Automotive News published a report last week saying two suppliers had insisted the Giulia, on the eve of production, didn't just fail one internal crash test, but failed the front-, side-, and rear-impact tests. A third supplier source told us the same thing. Alfa is denying it. It was due on sale in Europe late last year and was supposed to be here in the next month or two. But it wasn't, and it won't. It was to be headlined by a twin-turbo V6 that reportedly howled its way around the Nurburgring 14 seconds faster than the BMW M3 could manage. That second part is only true if you believe it's fair to compare a full lap in a standard BMW M3 with a favorable accumulation of sector times to a development prototype Giulia with 220 pounds stripped out of it and rolling on hand-cut racing slicks. No, me neither. A Promising Start The Giulia's all-new architecture was developed in just two years by a skunkworks of young engineers headed by Fiat's engineering prince, Philippe Krief, and (bafflingly) sited inside Maserati's headquarters complex in Modena, about three hours from Alfa Romeo's own Turin HQ.

Did BMW drag its feet on Mini recall?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening an investigation into BMW's reporting of a recall for 30,456 examples of the 2014-2015 Mini Cooper Hardtop, Cooper S, and the 2015 John Cooper Works. According to the government, "it appears from a review of NHTSA's databases that BMW may have failed to submit recall communications to NHTSA in a timely manner." The automaker issued the recall in July because crash tests showed the models didn't meet side impact requirements for passengers in the back seat. While there were no reported injuries at the time, the company decided to install energy-absorbing material in the space between the rear interior panels and the exterior. However, NHTSA has decided to investigate whether this campaign should have started much earlier, given the evidence the company had. According to the government's report, the Cooper Hardtop failed side-impact tests in 2014, although one of these tests was five-miles-per-hour faster than the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The agency claims: "In January 2015 BMW verbally committed that it would conduct a service campaign to add padding to the rear side panels of MY 2015 Mini 2 Door Hardtop Cooper models. However, BMW did not initiate the service campaign and failed to inform NHTSA of its failure to do so." A subsequent crash test of an example with this fix showed it to make the vehicle compliant with the rules. Mini spokesperson Mariella Kapsaskis told Autoblog: "Regarding the NHTSA audit query, BMW Group is evaluating the request and will respond to NHTSA as appropriate." INVESTIGATION Subject : BMW Reporting & Timely Recall Execution Date Investigation Opened: SEP 24, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: AQ15004 Component(s): STRUCTURE All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) MINI COOPER 2014-2015 MINI COOPER S 2014-2015 MINI JOHN COOPER WORKS 2015 Details Manufacturer: BMW of North America, LLC SUMMARY: NHTSA is opening this AQ to better understand and evaluate BMW's process(es) for its notification procedures and for timely and efficient execution of its safety recall campaigns. In mid-2014, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) had side impact moving deformable barrier (MDB) tests performed on two model year (MY) 2014 Mini 2 Door Hardtop Coopers. These two tests were performed at a speed 5 mph higher than required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214, Side impact protection.