Beautiful Wimbledon White, 390 Cid, C6 Trans, Nicely Restored, Hard To Find! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar design boss admits X-Type was a mistake

History has a way of repeating itself, especially in the auto industry. When Jaguar was owned by Ford, the British brand attempted to field a competitor for the BMW 3 Series, called the X-Type. Based on the bones of a Ford Mondeo, it aped the styling of Jaguar's flagship model, the XJ, while borrowing liberally from the Ford parts bin. That was 2001.
Now, in 2013, Jaguar is planning a new 3 Series challenger based on the platform previewed by the C-X17 Concept, while Ford is attempting to take the latest Mondeo upmarket. The moves have both brands recognizing where, why, and how the X-Type failed. "It didn't look mature or powerful or anything. It was just a car," Jaguar's current head of advanced design, Julian Thomson, told PistonHeads. Basing the X-Type on a front-drive car while giving it styling that was meant for a rear-driver lead to proportions that "were plainly wrong," Thomson told PH. Ford's European head of quality, Gunnar Herrmann, added that the X-Type was "a fake Jaguar, because every piece I touch is Ford."
For what it's worth, the X-Type's successor in the segment will sport rear-drive, with plenty of input from Ian Callum. Thomson described the new model, which would challenge the 3 Series as having, "Big wheels right to the ends of the car, low bonnet, short overhangs, very low cabins." Sounds good to us.

GM, Ford, Toyota, Stellantis CEOs want EV tax credit cap lifted

For just over a decade now, the U.S. has had a federal tax credit worth up to $7,500 for buyers of electric cars and plug-in hybrids. The catch has been that, once 200,000 of them were claimed for a manufacturer, that credit would be phased out. Now, automakers are asking for this cap to be lifted across the board, specifically General Motors, Ford, Toyota and Stellantis. The request comes in the form of a joint letter to Congress (which you can read here), signed by the CEOs of each company. And the ask really is as simple as that. The automakers would like the cap lifted for all EV manufacturers, and instead have a sunset date for the tax credit put in place. Broadly speaking, they want it lifted because of concerns about rising costs from materials and supply chain issues, which can lead to higher prices and could discourage buyers from getting an EV. It would also put automakers back on an even playing field. GM reached its tax credit cap a few years ago, meaning that none of its EVs are eligible for the tax credit. So while it reaped the benefits early on, it now has something of a disadvantage to competitors with credits remaining, such as those that signed on to this letter. GM wouldn't be the only beneficiary. Tesla ran out of credits years ago, too. Nissan still has credits, but likely not for much longer, as InsideEVs reports around 190,000 Leafs have been sold in the U.S. as of April. So it will probably face a phase-out soon, just as the anticipated, and more expensive, Ariya is heading to market. Making this change would also seem like a good choice for continuing to stimulate EV sales, if that's what the government is looking to do. While EVs are now reaching parity in practicality and performance with gas-powered cars, having an additional financial incentive will surely keep them looking more attractive. And automakers can push EVs without fear of running out of credits early. Certainly some sorts of changes to the EV tax credit are likely. There are bills in the works focusing on cap changes as well as the amount of money available, and which vehicles are eligible. Credits up to $12,500 have been proposed, plus possible credits for used EV sales and restricting some credits to vehicles of certain price brackets. Of course, any changes will require some cooperation in a deeply divided Congress. Related Video: Government/Legal Green Chevrolet Chrysler Ford Toyota Electric EV tax credit

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).