Beautiful California Rust Free Discovery Le Rear Jump Seats And Dual Moonroofs on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Our love of SUVs is killing people in the streets

Americans are fond of supersized fast-food meals and colossal convenience-store fountain drinks, even though they're clearly bad for our health and U.S. adults keep getting fatter. We also like large vehicles, and our love affair with SUVs is killing people in the streets. According to a recent investigation by the Detroit Free Press/USA Today, the increase in SUV sales over the past several years coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian deaths in the U.S. — up 46 percent since 2009, with nearly 6,000 people killed in 2016 alone. With SUV sales surpassing sedans in 2014 and pickups and SUVs currently accounting for 60 percent of new vehicle sales, it's no wonder Ford announced in April plans to cease U.S. sales of almost all passenger cars. And this followed Fiat Chrysler's move to virtually an all-truck, -SUV and -crossover lineup. While the Freep/USA Today investigation found that the simultaneous surge in SUV sales and pedestrian deaths comes down to vehicle size, it also points to a lack of action on the part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), even though it knew of the dangers SUVs pose to pedestrians. Also blamed are automakers dragging their feet on implementing active safety features. Using federal accident data, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) determined that there was an 81 percent increase in single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs between 2009 and 2016. Freep/USA Today's analysis of the same data by counting vehicles that struck and killed pedestrians instead of the number of people killed showed a 69 percent increase in SUV involvement. As far back as 2001, researchers at Rowan University forecasted a rise in pedestrian deaths as Americans began switching to SUVs. "In the United States, passenger vehicles are shifting from a fleet populated primarily by cars to a fleet dominated by light trucks and vans," the researchers wrote, with light trucks comprising SUVs.

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.

2020 Land Rover Defender vs. 2020 Jeep Wrangler: How they compare on paper

For ages, the Jeep Wrangler has had the serious off-road SUV market in America all to itself, especially when it comes to two-door variants. But competition is coming, and the first on its way is the 2020 Land Rover Defender, which was just revealed at the Frankfurt Motor Show. Each packages retro looks and impressive off-road capability, but does one have an advantage? We decided to take a look into each SUV's specifications and compare them on their engines, drivetrains, interior space and towing among other things, to see how they stack up. Since both SUVs are offered in two-door and four-door versions, we've made sure to feature both versions. You can find all the vital stats in the chart below, followed by more in-depth analysis. Engines and drivetrains The Land Rover is the clear high-performance option of these two SUVs. Its base turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, offered only in the four-door Defender 110, is more powerful than either of the gas engines offered on the Jeep Wrangler. The Wrangler's four-cylinder matches it on torque, at least. The optional turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six in the Defender makes over 100 more horsepower and pound-feet of torque than either Jeep gas engine. But if you're looking for diesel propulsion, along with its associated torque and fuel economy, the Wrangler will be your only option. Final specs haven't been released, but in the Ram 1500, the same engine makes 260 horsepower and 480 pound-feet of torque. Fuel economy hasn't been announced for the Land Rover or the diesel Wrangler. But if fuel economy is a concern, the four-cylinder Wrangler is the most frugal of the SUVs we have numbers on. As for transmissions, the Wrangler is your only choice if you have to have a manual. It's available on both the two-door and four-door models, but only with the V6 engine. If you don't mind an automatic transmission, both SUVs come with variations on the ZF eight-speed auto. Getting the power to the wheels is another area where these two SUVs diverge. The Jeep is very traditional with a standard selectable four-wheel-drive system with two-wheel drive, and low- and high-range four-wheel drive modes. On the Sahara, there's an available full-time four-wheel drive mode, but the other modes are still available. On the Land Rover, you get full-time four-wheel drive, the same kind used on the Land Rover Range Rover.