2007 Toyota Fj Cruiser Base Sport Utility 4-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Japanese dealer petitioning Lexus for luxury van [w/poll]

Used to be that if you wanted a luxury automobile - especially one to be chauffeured around in - your choices were basically limited to a sedan. It could be bigger or smaller, more or less expensive, depending on your needs and budget, but it was always going to have four doors and a trunk. But these days the rich and famous are looking elsewhere for their commodious forms of pampering transportation. There are, of course, the crossovers and SUVs, which only seem to be getting bigger and more expensive thanks to the likes of the Mercedes-Benz G-Class, Range Rover L and upcoming Bentley sport-ute. But luxury vans are becoming the new big thing.
That's the point that one dealer in Japan is trying to make to Toyota. The dealership owner himself reasons that if he's going out on the town, he's likely to take his chauffeured Lexus LS. But if he's taking a few friends along, even the biggest sedan isn't going to cut it. So he takes a Toyota Alphard (pictured above, also known as the Vellfire), a JDM van that's even bigger than a Voxy/Noah or Sienna but hardly a high-end affair. That's why he's asking Lexus to make a luxury van.
The idea may seem a little far-fetched, but isn't without precedent. It didn't take much for Lexus to transform the Land Cruiser into the LX and thus create its first luxury SUV. And as Mercedes has shown with pimped-out versions of the Sprinter and now with the debut of the new V-Class in Geneva, there's clearly a market for it... in some countries, anyway. The only question in our minds is how long it's going to take other luxury automakers to catch on, because let's face it: the Chrysler Town & Country ain't gonna cut it for those used to be driven around in a Maybach.

Scion was Toyota's lost generation

Toyota's top North American leader was succinct in explaining the reasons for killing Scion. "It's the right decision at the right time," Jim Lentz said. It's hard to disagree. In a strong market that saw 17.5 million sales last year, Scion volume dipped three percent. Its product lineup has withered for years, which is always a telltale sign a brand doesn't have the full support of its owner. Though enthusiasts love the FR-S sports car, it's the fruit of a joint project with Subaru that also produced the BRZ. Scion's coolest car has a twin sold by one of its rivals. After the FR-S launched in 2012, Scion got nothing – squat – in the way of new products until the iA and iM arrived late last year, IHS senior analyst Stephanie Brinley noted. "[Scion] was not successful in building a visual brand identity or product personality," she said. Lentz, Scion's first vice president and now CEO of Toyota's North American division, admitted the market has changed. "Younger customers have a different mindset," he said. In the early oughts, a brand that catered to a youthful demographic made some sense, and this is one front where Toyota can declare victory. Seventy percent of Scion's buyers were new to Toyota, and the average age was 36 years old. The problem is, not enough of them buy Scions anymore. Scion hit a highwater sales mark of 173,034 vehicles in 2006 and hasn't come close to reaching that since. The recession hurt Scion, too. It bottomed out in 2010 with just 45,678 sales, a time when the rest of the industry was beginning to recover. There was a brief uptick (73,507) in 2012, but Scion failed to capitalize on that momentum and sales fell for three more years. Toyota is calling Scion's pending death a "transition" back to the main company. Sure, most of the cars will be rebadged Toyotas, like the FR-S, iA, and iM. The C-HR, an attractive future crossover that would have given Scion a boost, will go into production as a Toyota. But make no mistake: This is a failure. Toyota is closing a brand in the same way General Motors scrapped Oldsmobile, Ford shuttered Mercury, and Chrysler dropped Plymouth. Those brands languished for years. Toyota moved quicker to put the fork in Scion, which prevented it from becoming a long-term drain on the parent company. Lentz was dead on. It's the right time. News & Analysis News: Sergio Marchionne is against a Ferrari SUV Analysis: His exact words were, "you have to shoot me first," Bloomberg reported.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.