2010 Jaguar Xk 2dr Conv Xkr Convertible Navigation Supercharged Jaguar Certified on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why Land Rover's reluctant to show concepts: Chinese clones

While the Chinese auto industry continues to grow and expand with new and original products, a number of automakers still refuse to play by the rules. Rather than coming up with original designs, these automakers shamelessly copy designs from other automakers, slapping their badge on the front as if it were an original product. According to Auto Express, Land Rover has grown tired of dealing with these frauds to the point that it's essentially stopped showing concept cars in order to stave off these clones. One of the most notable and brazen examples of these Chinese copycats is the LandWind X7. While that car looks like an obvious ripoff of the Range Rover Evoque, complaints by Jaguar Land Rover were dismissed, and the X7 hit the market for about a third of the price of the Evoque. Further efforts by JLR have done nothing to halt or change the car's production. It seems Chinese authorities are more interested in protecting the home team than upholding copyright laws. Land Rover design boss Gerry McGovern said the automaker was "wary of showing new concepts" because they just give these competitors time to work up a copy. Land Rover's latest model, the Velar, debuted in Geneva in production form. Skipping concepts may not stop competitors from making copies, but it does give Land Rover a huge head start when it comes to production. Related Video: Featured Gallery Production LandWind X7 News Source: Auto Express via Road & Track Design/Style Government/Legal Jaguar Land Rover SUV Concept Cars Luxury jaguar land rover

2019 Jaguar I-Pace First Drive Review | The future is now

Jaguar's new all-electric I-Pace may be one of the brand's most significant breakthroughs. This is not just because the handsomely muscular all-wheel-drive crossover can travel 240 miles on a single charge to its 90 kWh battery. Or because it will cost a competitive $69,500 before federal and state incentives. Or that it can accelerate from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds — about as quickly as Jaguar's V8 F-Type sports car. It is not even because it may be the first vehicle to feature a small "froot" — "front boot" — which is a hideous British English term for the area known by the equally unappealing American neologism "frunk." The I-Pace ranks high in the Jag insurrective pantheon because it is the first truly competitive all-electric vehicle from a major luxury manufacturer to hit the entirety of the American market since Tesla jump-started (ugh!) the contemporary, fancy, battery-powered vehicle campaign back in 2008. Sure, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW, and others have promised these vehicles, but as far as we know, they don't exist, and we haven't driven them. The best news about the Big Electric Cat is that it's actually enjoyable on the road. Some of this is because of its intrinsic design benefits. The heavy battery pack, housed in the floor, contributes to a low center of gravity as well as ideal 50/50 front/rear mass balance. Both of these aid not only in the vehicle's road-holding capabilities, but in its style of holding the road. Jaguar has always been adept at splitting the suspension difference between German plank and American couch, and the I-Pace follows this general trend, providing a ride that is connected without feeling overly harsh, even on the optional 22-inch wheels and Pirelli P-Zero tires. (Note to self: Reserve the Instagram handle Donk-E.) But the I-Pace does something interesting. Due to its high seating position, and the low placement of its drivetrain components, it provides the sensation that the mechanical action of forward momentum is within the driver's direct and immediate control, but taking place elsewhere. There is no delay, or vagueness — the inputs are precise and it goes where you want and expect. But it induces the odd feeling that you are riding atop a maglev hovercraft. It's futuristic, uncanny, and fun.

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.