2002 Lexus Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lexus files to copyright LC 500 nameplates [UPDATE]

UPDATE: Reached for comment, Lexus told Autoblog that it "cannot offer comment on the potential naming of a production version of the LF-LC concept" and pointed out that automakers trademark nameplates as a matter of course. Some automakers already slap a production-ready name on their concepts, but not Lexus. The Japanese automaker typically labels its show cars with the letters LF-XX. So when we heard that Toyota had green-lit the LF-LC concept for production, we naturally started wondering what name the production version would carry. But if the latest intel is any indication, we can stop wondering. According to Lexus Enthusiast, the automaker has filed to trademark the names LC 500 and LC 500h in a variety of markets – including the United States, Canada and Australia. The application tells us a number of things: first of all, that the LF-LC will retain that second set of letters along the road to production (like the NX but unlike other recent Lexus concepts). And secondly, it indicates what engines we can expect to find under the hood. The 500 designation would seem to suggest that the base version of Lexus' upcoming halo sports car will pack the 5.0-liter V8 from the RC F. The bigger question mark is over the hybrid version. Current gasoline-electric models in the company's lineup include the RX 450h (based on a 3.5-liter V6) and the LS 600h (with a 5.0-liter V8). For the LC 500h, Lexus could be planning a more potent electric motor to mate to the 3.5L V6, or planning a new powertrain altogether.

Thanks to smaller engines, vehicle dependability falls for first time in 16 years

As automakers have made engines smaller and smaller to improve fuel economy, problems in those vehicles have gotten bigger and bigger. That's the synopsis of a J.D. Power vehicle-dependability study, which found that dependability dropped for the first time in 16 years, largely because the proliferation of four-cylinder engines is causing the vehicles to be less reliable. Specifically, the number of problems per 100 vehicles (or what J.D. Power calls PP100) during the past 12 months for 2011 model-year vehicles rose six percent from the year-earlier figures for 2010 model-year cars. Singling out four-cylinder vehicles revealed about a 10-percent increase in problems during the past year. This issues largely related to engine hesitation, rough transmission shifting and lack of power, signaling the inability of vehicle makers to iron out some of the problems in their smaller engines as they strove for better fuel economy. Six- and five-cylinder engines proved far more reliable. Among car brands, BMW's Mini sub-brand came out as least reliable, with 185 problems per 100 vehicles during the past year. Toyota's Lexus badge was easily the most reliable, with just 68 problems per 100 vehicles. Coming in second place was Mercedes-Benz. The overall average was 133. Check out J.D. Power's press release below. J.D. Power Reports: Increased Engine and Transmission Problems Contribute to Decline in Vehicle Dependability for The First Time in More Than 15 Years General Motors Company Receives Eight Segment Awards, While Toyota Motor Corporation Garners Seven and Honda Motor Company Earns Six WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: o Owners of 3-year-old vehicles (2011 model year) report more problems than did owners of 3-year-old vehicles last year, according to the J.D. Power 2014 U.S. Vehicle Dependability StudySM (VDS) released today. The study, now in its 25th year, examines problems experienced during the past 12 months by original owners of 2011 model-year vehicles. Overall dependability is determined by the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality. The study finds that overall vehicle dependability averages 133 PP100, a 6 percent increase in problems from 126 PP100 in 2013. This marks the first time since the 1998 study that the average number of problems has increased. "Until this year, we have seen a continual improvement in vehicle dependability," said David Sargent, vice president of global automotive at J.D.

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.