2007 Land Rover Range Rover Sport Hse Sport Utility 4-door 4.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Audi and Jaguar Land Rover recalls address seatbelt issues

Audi and Jaguar Land Rover are each recalling several thousand vehicles for separate potential seatbelt issues. The recalls cover the 2022 Audi A3 and S3; 2022 Jaguar F-Type, F-Pace and XF; and the 2022-23 Land Rover Defender, Discovery, Discovery Sport, Range Rover Sport and Range Rover Velar. Examples of these vehicles may have shipped with seatbelt pretensioners that will not function properly in the event of an accident.  Audi is recalling its sedans for tensioner devices that may not adequately restrain drivers or passengers during a crash. The issue was discovered during Korean market crash testing of the high-performance RS 3.  "The seat belt tensioner in the affected vehicles serve the purpose of holding the passenger in his position in the seat," Audi said in its defect report to NHTSA. "In the event of a crash, the retention force of the seat belt may not reach the intended level. As a result, the position of the body can be further to the front of the seat, which leads to a negative influence on the whole restraint system, increasing the risk of injury." A different company, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), meanwhile, also has an issue with a batch of pretensioners installed in its cars and SUVs. Pretensioners are the devices that fire off to rapidly retract the seatbelt when a crash is detected. Most utilize an explosive charge and pressure tube JLR says that some pretensioner devices provided by one of its suppliers may not have properly-specified pressure tubes that may not channel the gasses to the retraction mechanism correctly.  "A damaged front seat belt pretensioner tube may have been installed on the seat belt retractor," JLR's report said. "This may result in a reduced level or complete loss of pre-tensioning in the event of a crash and increased occupant injury." Owners of the models included in both recall campaigns should receive notices from the manufacturers in the coming months.  Related video: Recalls Audi Jaguar Land Rover Ownership Safety SUV Sedan

New Land Rover Defender aces Euro crash tests

While the 2020 Land Rover Defender has not yet been crash-test by U.S. safety agencies such as NHTSA or IIHS, we do now have results for Europe's NCAP crash tests and accident-avoidance tests, where the Defender earned the top rating of five stars. The Defender model used for NCAP testing was the 110 variant with right-hand drive. The NCAP regimen includes several different crash tests: an offset front crash test into a moveable barrier with both the vehicle and the barrier traveling at 50 km/hr (31 mph), a front crash test into a full-width fixed barrier at 50 km/hr (31 mph), a side-impact crash test with a barrier traveling at 60 km/hr (37 mph) hitting the driver's door, and a side-impact test where the car strikes a pole at 32 km/hr (20 mph). The Defender's scores for the adult occupant and for a child occupant were both 85%. Additionally, the agency looks at the severity of injuries of the vehicle striking a pedestrian, taking data for a pedestrian's head hitting the hood, and their upper and lower leg being hit by the front of the vehicle. There is also testing of the vehicle's automatic emergency braking system's ability to avoiding hitting a pedestrian and a cyclist under various scenarios. The efficacy of active-safety systems for avoiding collisions with other vehicles is also tested. The Defender's score for protecting pedestrians and cyclists was 71%. The driver assists scored 79%. Results for several European-market cars were released together with those for the Defender, the most noteworthy of which was for the Honda E. The electric city car fared less well than the big Land Rover, garnering a score of four stars overall. In the same battery of test, the Honda E scored 76% for adult occupant protection, 82% for a child occupant, 62% for protecting pedestrians and cyclists, and 65% for its driver assists. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study