1956 Ford F100 Chopped, Shaved, Nice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM being sued over imploding Bosch fuel pumps in Duramax diesel trucks

Texas-based law firm Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez (HMG) this week filed a class-action lawsuit against General Motors over an alleged issue with Bosch CP4 fuel pumps. The suit claims Bosch designed the CP4 pump to work with European diesel fuel, which is thicker than U.S. diesel. When GM installed that pump in the 6.6-liter Duramax engine used from the 2011 to 2016 model years, the lawsuit claims the thinner U.S. fuel didn't provide enough lubrication, allowing air pockets to form in the fuel pump. That, in turn, allegedly let metal rub against metal inside the pump, causing the pump to eventually disintegrate and "send thousands of metal shards into the fuel injection system and every part of the engine." The Detroit News reported on the most recent lawsuit filed in Michigan's Eastern District Court, but the case is another piece of nationwide legal maneuvering going on since at least last September. Every U.S. truck maker used the Bosch CP4 fuel pump, and HMG originally went after all of them, as well as Bosch. On September 30, 2018, HMG filed a class-action suit in Texas on behalf of eight plaintiffs. The law firm wanted to prosecute the affair under RICO — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — and named 10 defendants: FCA US LLC, FCA North America Holdings, LLC, F/K/A Chrysler Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., Ford Motor Company, General Motors LLC, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, VM North America, Inc., and VM Motori S.P.A.  The firm filed another suit in Florida on Nov. 2, 2018, against the same 10 defendants, again under the RICO statute, this time on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs. We don't know how many other suits might have been filed, but the two suits mentioned apparently didn't have legs — the courts dismissed both quickly. So HMG shifted its strategy away from the RICO angle, and focused its efforts on GM, filing suit in California on Nov. 20, 2018. Instead of trying to catch 10 fish with a small net, HMG wants to score one fish with a big net. The results have borne more promise for the plaintiffs. In July this year, a judge in California denied GM's motion to dismiss, noting "the alleged defect is central to the vehicleÂ’s function." This latest suit filed on Aug. 6 in Detroit singles out GM again.  The Bosch CP4 is known to be problematic, however.

New Ford Escape spied inside and out

For the 2016 model year, the Ford Escape receives the Blue Oval's latest Sync 3 infotainment system and some minor tweaks to the color and trim options. Based on these new spy shots, it would appear that the crossover is due for some much bigger changes not too far into the future, as well. The thorough refresh isn't just an exterior styling update, either. Ford's designers are giving the future Escape a front end that's a bit more in the style of the latest Edge, at least based on these shots. Peek behind the mesh obscuring the grille, and the styling there now appears to have a hexagonal shape with horizontal slats and a smaller, lower intake. At the same time, the headlights are narrower and come to a sharper point as they wrap around the fender. The heavy camouflage makes the changes at the back harder to spot, although the taillights seem subtly tweaked with a similar overall shape but a clear stripe cutting through the center. The Escape also seems to be receiving a completely different center stack inside, but the area is still well concealed. The gearshift moves down between the seats, and that allows physical controls for the radio and HVAC to take that real estate. It's possible that the infotainment screen might pop up from the mesh-covered area you can see at the top of the interior photos. Take a look through the gallery for some detailed shots of Ford's camouflaged crossover.

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).