2005 Used 4.7l V8 32v Automatic 4wd Suv Premium on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Mercedes-Benz G-Class vs big luxury off-roaders: How they compare on paper

During our first drive of the 2019 Mercedes-Benz G-Class, the all-new SUV's product manager was asked to identify competitors that might have been benchmarked in its development. The look on his face was about the same as if someone had asked him to recite King Lear in Klingon. As far as Andreas Hoeppel was concerned, the G 550 and AMG G 63 doesn't actually have a rival, or at least something the engineers and designers thought to compare it against. The G-Class is a G-Class, who cares what the other guys are doing? Well, in case you care, we figured we'd plug the new G-Class' specs into the old Autoblog Comparo Generator 3000 (TM) to see how the G 550 and AMG G 63 compare to the Range Rover and its mightiest SVAutobiography Dynamic model, plus the Lexus LX 570 and Bentley Bentayga V8. Frankly, Heir Hoeppel was onto something as each of these is wildly different. But, they do share some common elements: giant size and weight, ultra-lux interiors, and far more off-roading capability than other luxury SUVs offer and any of its owners are likely to ever utilize. Sad. So enjoy this trip down specification lane, and if you're still left hungry, you can always check out our Range Rover comparison or create your very own comparo. Off-Road Clearances and Capability All the fancy off-roading software and special cameras in the world won't do you a lick of good if your SUV is too close to the ground or has low-hanging body work that'll get easily ripped off. As such, check out each of these uber-SUV's ground clearance, approach and departure angles, and wading/fording depths. In this case, the Range Rover has an advantage due to its air suspension that can raise itself into an Off-Roading height that's a whopping 2 inches higher than the new G-Wagen. Sadly for itself, Lexus only provides figures for its air suspension when in normal height. It could match or surpass the Range Rover for all we know (but doubt it). As Land Rover does provide figures for the Range Rover's approach and departure angles in normal and Off-Road height, you can get an idea of just how much clearance the new G-Wagen has without any fancy (and expensive to fix) raising and lowering air suspension hardware. In fact, its departure angle is better than even the Range Rover's Off-Road height. Bentley doesn't provide any such information despite touting the Bentayga's surprising off-roading talents.

Kia leads J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2022

For the first year ever, Kia leads J.D. Power's annual Vehicle Dependability Study with a score of 145 problems per 100 vehicles. Buick (147) and Hyundai (148) round out the top three. The highest premium brand on the list is Genesis, with a score of 148. It's common for so-called "mass market" brands to lead this particular study, according to J.D. Power, as "premium" brands "typically incorporate more technology in their vehicles, which increases the likelihood for problems to occur" and aren't necessarily built to a higher standard that less-expensive brands. The highest-rated single nameplate is the Porsche 911. It's the third time out of the past four years and the second year in a row that Porsche's quintessential sports car has taken top honors. Porsche as a brand sits in seventh place (162) just behind Lexus (159) and ahead of Dodge (166). At the very bottom of the list is Land Rover with a dismal score of 284; the SUV specialist held the same unfortunate distinction on last year's list. Ram (266), Volvo (256), Alfa Romeo (245) and Acura (244) also performed poorly. The overall industry average score sits at 192 — mass market brands average a score of 190 while premium brands sit 14 points lower at 204. While Tesla is unofficially included in some of J.D. Power's results, the agency says the sample size it has access to for this study is too small to include. As has been the case for the past several years, infotainment systems dominate the list of problems reported by owners. Popular (or unpopular, depending on your point of view) complaints include built-in voice recognition (8.3 PP100), Android Auto/Apple CarPlay connectivity (5.4 PP100), built-in Bluetooth system (4.5 PP100), not enough power plugs/USB ports (4.2 PP100), navigation systems difficult to understand/use (3.7 PP100), touchscreen/display screen (3.6 PP100), and navigation system inaccurate/outdated map (3.6 PP100). While problems with the car's infotainment and technology packages are indeed bothersome, it's important to remember that such issues aren't usually leaving owners stranded with an immovable vehicle like a broken transmission or blown engine would. Culling infotainment complaints from the results would reduce the average problem-per-100-vehicle score by a staggering 51.9 points. The vehicles included in this study are from the 2019 model year. That means owners have had three years to get to know their cars and trucks. It's the 33rd year that J.D.

Google shares more details on self-driving car accidents

Google has pledged to release monthly reports on the status of its self-driving car program, and says these updates will include information on accidents involving the vehicles. But the company won't release the actual accident reports, a sore point for activists who recently have clamored for the company to be more transparent in the way it tests this promising technology on public roads. "Google is dribbling out bits of information in the hope to silence legitimate calls for full transparency," said John Simpson, privacy director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has asked Google to release reports from the 12 accidents the company says it has been involved in over the past six years. "They are testing on public roads, and the public has a right to know exactly what happened when something goes wrong." Under California law, the accident reports are not considered public records. Google has attributed all accidents to human error, and says drivers of the other cars involved caused 11 of the 12 accidents. In eight of those, the Google cars were rear-ended, and the autonomous vehicles were sideswiped in two other crashes. One of the accidents occurred at an intersection when a human driver failed to yield at a stop sign, and in one incident, a Google driver accidentally rear-ended another car while manually driving. Google had previously provided those details. The first monthly report installment sheds new light on which types of self-driving vehicles were involved, directions of travel, locations, and whether the cars were operating in autonomous or manual mode. Update: Google says this information comes directly from the OL 316 forms used to report accidents involving autonomous cars in California, though it has "edited the summaries lightly to protect other drivers' information." But Google still will not release the original OL 316 forms, nor the "traffic collision report" forms used in California to report accidents. Another company that has been involved in a single self-driving car accident, Delphi Automotive, has released this information, which verified its car was not at fault. Regarding Google, Simpson said, "We now know a few more details of what happened. The problem is that it's Google's version and they want us to take their word for it." The Google self-report adds information that goes beyond accidents, with further details on the company's overall program.