2022 Buick Encore Gx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bring back the Bronco! Trademarks we hope are actually (someday) future car names

Trademark filings are the tea leaves of the auto industry. Read them carefully – and interpret them correctly – and you might be previewing an automaker's future product plans. Yes, they're routinely filed to maintain the rights to an iconic name. And sometimes they're only for toys and clothing. But not always. Sometimes, the truth is right in front of us. The trademark is required because a company actually wants to use the name on a new car. With that in mind, here's a list of intriguing trademark filings we want to see go from paperwork to production reality. Trademark: Bronco Company: Ford Previous Use: The Bronco was a long-running SUV that lived from 1966-1996. It's one of America's original SUVs and was responsible for the increased popularity of the segment. Still, it's best known as O.J. Simpson's would-be getaway car. We think: The Bronco was an icon. Everyone seems to want a Wrangler-fighter – Ford used to have a good one. Enough time has passed that the O.J. police chase isn't the immediate image conjured by the Bronco anymore. Even if we're doing a wish list in no particular order, the Bronco still finds its way to the top. For now (unfortunately), it's just federal paperwork. Rumors on this one can get especially heated. The official word from a Ford spokesman is: "Companies renew trademark filings to maintain ownership and control of the mark, even if it is not currently used. Ford values the iconic Bronco name and history." Trademarks: Aviator, AV8R Company: Ford Previous Use: The Aviator was one of the shortest-run Lincolns ever, lasting for the 2003-2005 model years. It never found the sales success of the Ford Explorer, with which it shared a platform. We Think: The Aviator name no longer fits with Lincoln's naming nomenclature. Too bad, it's better than any other name Lincoln currently uses, save for its former big brother, the Navigator. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree, though. Ford has made several customized, aviation themed-Mustangs in the past, including one called the Mustang AV8R in 2008, which had cues from the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet. It sold for $500,000 at auction, and the glass roof – which is reminiscent of a fighter jet cockpit – helped Ford popularize the feature. Trademark: EcoBeast Company: Ford Previous Use: None by major carmakers.

GM recalls nearly 24,000 Buick Regals for brake issue

Buick is recalling 2018-2020 model year Regals to address a software defect in the braking system that would result in a loss of power assist under certain circumstances, making the brakes difficult to operate and potentially leading to a crash. In total, 23,734 models are covered by the campaign. "In the event of a partial or full loss of vacuum-brake assist, the vehicle’s hydraulic-brake boost is designed to supply supplemental pressure to the vehicleÂ’s brake system. A software error in the electronic brake control module (EBCM) may fail to activate the hydraulic-brake boost under these conditions," GM said in its defect report to NHTSA. "If the vehicleÂ’s vacuum-power brake assist partially or fully fails, braking events may require additional stopping distance, depending on the brake pedal force applied by the driver. Increased stopping distances could increase the risk of a crash." GM says that a warning indicator will illuminate in the dash if the system completely fails, and drivers may notice an increase in brake pedal resistance. Failure will not render the brakes inoperable, but they will require more force to operate. GM has begun notifying dealers of the defect; owners should be notified starting in August.   Related video: Recalls Buick GM Safety Hatchback Wagon Sedan

GM says safety is a reason it's dropping Apple CarPlay, Android Auto

Update: GM sent us a statement as a follow-up to its original comments seen in this post: "We wanted to reach out to clarify that comments about GM's position on phone projection were misrepresented in previous articles and to reinforce our valued partnerships with Apple and Google and each company’s commitment to driver safety. GM's embedded infotainment strategy is driven by the benefits of having a system that allows for greater integration with the larger GM ecosystem and vehicles." The original story can be read in its entirety below.   General Motors announced its intention to remove Apple CarPlay and Android Auto functionality from its upcoming EVs earlier this year, and internet comments sections haven't been kind since. As the first of many EVs to follow – the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV – hits the market, GM is expanding on its initial explanations for dropping the tech. Motor Trend spoke with Tim Babbit, GMÂ’s head of product for infotainment, to learn more. Attributed to Babbit, from the story: “They have stability issues that manifest themselves as bad connections, poor rendering, slow responses, and dropped connections. And when CarPlay and Android Auto have issues, drivers pick up their phones again, taking their eyes off the road and totally defeating the purpose of these phone-mirroring programs. Solving those issues can sometimes be beyond the control of the automaker.” Babbit suggests that a world without Apple CarPlay or Android Auto will be a safer one, as folks wonÂ’t be looking to control their infotainment systems via their phones. However, Babbit also tells MT that this theory hasnÂ’t been tested in either the lab or the real world yet. Instead of using a navigation or music-playing app powered through your phone, upcoming GM EVs will use a Google-based infotainment system called “Ultifi” that runs a ton of integrated Google apps. Google Maps will be the native navigation app in the system; youÂ’ll be able to log in to Spotify or other apps to load your music up, and so on. The idea here is that youÂ’ll have all the same apps that were on your phone available but integrated within the infotainment system instead, and you'll be able to use voice controls to control every last bit of it with no need to reach for a phone. That sounds amenable in theory, but how consumers react to the removal of a feature that they know and love now is a risky gamble.