2 Dr Coupe Automatic Gasoline 4.0l 8 Cyl Engine Green on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Are Toyota and Lexus planning to use Mazda's straight-six and new platform?

Japan's Best Car magazine has what appears to be a whopper of a rumor. The mag said it scooped Mazda's development of a straight-six engine that Mazda only revealed in March, the carmaker having buried the information in a financial statement. By way of Lexus Enthusiast and according to Google translate, Best Car writes that as it was speaking to a Toyota source on an unrelated matter, the magazine found out that Mazda's work on the straight-six was predicated on the engine's use in Toyota Group vehicles, which includes Lexus. Here's the account of how the engine and Mazda's coming front-engined rear-drive platform, dubbed "Large Architecture," will make their way to Toyota City: The first appearance for the straight-six, predicted to come in at a hair under 3.0 liters, is the Mazda Atenza/Mazda6 successor coming around 2022. The powertrain will get a 48-volt hybrid system for increased fuel economy, and the automaker's said to be considering a plug-in hybrid version. Toyota's first shot at the platform and the straight-six will be whatever fills the slot of the Japanese-market Mark-X sedan. We once had a version of the Mark-X in the U.S. as the Toyota Cressida. In Japan, it's sold as a rear- and all-wheel drive option to the Camry. The Mark-X is slated to end production in December this year — a "sporty four-door coupe" on Mazda's platform and with Mazda's engine eventually taking its place. Lexus has a number of plans for the components from Hiroshima. The next Lexus IS is said to evolve from the current sedan, using a Lexus V6 but migrating to Toyota's TNGA platform. Best Car says the IS after that, perhaps sometime around 2026, will hop onto Mazda's new platform and use the inline-six engine. Before that, the replacement for the Lexus RC in 2022 will sit on the Mazda platform and get that inline-six. What's more, Lexus will introduce a new model to slot between the $64,750 RC and the $92,950 LC employing Mazda's architecture and engine. Best Car says the model will act as a "next car" for RC owners, but we can't tell if the magazine means a two-door or a four-door coupe; the article also says the Lexus model will compete with the Audi A7. Toyota and Mazda partnered up in 2016 on technology sharing. Best Car's take is that, as was done on the Supra, Toyota is picking up all the tech it can from suitable sources so that it can continue to sell models that don't make sense to develop alone.

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

Google shares more details on self-driving car accidents

Google has pledged to release monthly reports on the status of its self-driving car program, and says these updates will include information on accidents involving the vehicles. But the company won't release the actual accident reports, a sore point for activists who recently have clamored for the company to be more transparent in the way it tests this promising technology on public roads. "Google is dribbling out bits of information in the hope to silence legitimate calls for full transparency," said John Simpson, privacy director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has asked Google to release reports from the 12 accidents the company says it has been involved in over the past six years. "They are testing on public roads, and the public has a right to know exactly what happened when something goes wrong." Under California law, the accident reports are not considered public records. Google has attributed all accidents to human error, and says drivers of the other cars involved caused 11 of the 12 accidents. In eight of those, the Google cars were rear-ended, and the autonomous vehicles were sideswiped in two other crashes. One of the accidents occurred at an intersection when a human driver failed to yield at a stop sign, and in one incident, a Google driver accidentally rear-ended another car while manually driving. Google had previously provided those details. The first monthly report installment sheds new light on which types of self-driving vehicles were involved, directions of travel, locations, and whether the cars were operating in autonomous or manual mode. Update: Google says this information comes directly from the OL 316 forms used to report accidents involving autonomous cars in California, though it has "edited the summaries lightly to protect other drivers' information." But Google still will not release the original OL 316 forms, nor the "traffic collision report" forms used in California to report accidents. Another company that has been involved in a single self-driving car accident, Delphi Automotive, has released this information, which verified its car was not at fault. Regarding Google, Simpson said, "We now know a few more details of what happened. The problem is that it's Google's version and they want us to take their word for it." The Google self-report adds information that goes beyond accidents, with further details on the company's overall program.