1997 Bmw M3 Coupe. Estoril Blue On Modena. 45k Miles. Florida on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 BMW X4 xDrive28i

When BMW unveiled the X6 back in 2008, critical reviews were mixed, to say the least. By all accounts, the heavyweight crossover actually drove quite well, but the idea of a BMW X5 that traded a lot of functionality for polarizing looks and a higher price tag seemed like a tough sell. Then it went on sale and quickly proved to be a cash cow. Today, the German brand has moved over a quarter million of the things worldwide. Unsurprisingly, this success has moved BMW to double down on its so-called Sport Activity Coupe by adding a smaller variant. The all-new X4, while not a bad steer in and of itself, makes even less sense than its big brother, particularly when viewed alongside BMW's other offerings. Like the X6 and X5, the X4 borrows heavily from another of the brand's utility vehicles, in this case, the less-costly X3. Also like the X6, this new crossover-coupe's styling is sure to cause a schism among critics and consumers alike. You can probably guess where the majority of the Autoblog camp falls. To be totally frank, the exterior of the X4 is simply ghastly to this writer, particularly in this tester's eye-catching paint. Admittedly – and much like the X6 – there's not much objectionable from the A-pillar forward, where the X4 has a lot in common with the X3. It's only once moving towards the rear that things well and truly go wrong. There's just so much visual mass, and it's been made worse by the way BMW designers wussed out. Bear with me. Compare the profile of the X6 with the X4, and pay particular attention to the roofline on the bigger vehicle. The angle of the roofline is noticeably more dramatic on the X6, which comes at the expense of second-row headroom (an oft-criticized area for the big boy). For the X4, designers tried to have their cake and eat it too, maintaining second-row headroom but with a coupe-like profile. The result is an X4 that is bulbous and uncouth from the B-pillar back, more hunchbacked Gran Turismo than svelte Gran Coupe. BMW might have been better served if its exterior work had followed the stylings of the cabin, which is more or less a clone of what's on offer in the X3. Material quality is still great, with soft-touch plastics and available cool-to-the-touch brushed aluminum throughout. I really dug the Ivory White Nevada leather and contrast red stitching on this test vehicle, as it provided an eye-pleasing departure from the sea of blacks, grays and tans so typical of the luxury crossover market.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.

Is the skill of rev matching being lost to computers?

If the ability to drive a vehicle equipped with a manual gearbox is becoming a lost art, then the skill of being able to match revs on downshifts is the stuff they would teach at the automotive equivalent of the Shaolin Temple. The usefulness of rev matching in street driving is limited most of the time – aside from sounding cool and impressing your friends. But out on a race track or the occasional fast, windy road, its benefits are abundantly clear. While in motion, the engine speed and wheel speed of a vehicle with a manual transmission are kept in sync when the clutch is engaged (i.e. when the clutch pedal is not being pressed down). However, when changing gear, that mechanical link is severed briefly, and the synchronization between the motor and wheels is broken. When upshifting during acceleration, this isn't much of an issue, as there's typically not a huge disparity between engine speed and wheel speed as a car accelerates. Rev-matching downshifts is the stuff they would teach at the automotive equivalent of the Shaolin Temple. But when slowing down and downshifting – as you might do when approaching a corner at a high rate of speed – that gap of time caused by the disengagement of the clutch from the engine causes the revs to drop. Without bringing up the revs somehow to help the engine speed match the wheel speed in the gear you're about to use, you'll typically get a sudden jolt when re-engaging the clutch as physics brings everything back into sync. That jolt can be a big problem when you're moving along swiftly, causing instability or even a loss of traction, particularly in rear-wheel-drive cars. So the point of rev matching is to blip the throttle simultaneously as you downshift gears in order to bring the engine speed to a closer match with the wheel speed before you re-engage the clutch in that lower gear, in turn providing a much smoother downshift. When braking is thrown in, you get heel-toe downshifting, which involves some dexterity to use all three pedals at the same time with just two feet – clutch in, slow the car while revving, clutch out. However, even if you're aware of heel-toe technique and the basic elements of how to perform a rev match, perfecting it to the point of making it useful can be difficult.