1966 Ford Bronco U14, 302 V8, Automatic, Original Removable Steel Top! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford tweaking Model E dealer program to address dealer concerns

Ford's been working on its strategy and sales reorganization for a couple of years, the initiative that created the Blue (ICE), Pro (commercial), and Model E (electric) divisions. On the Model E side, part of continuous reworking of the EV arm has been in response to dealer lawsuits filed in numerous states, since Model E not only stipulated investments of anywhere from $500,000 to $1.2 million, the automaker initially wanted dealers to set no-haggle pricing, offer remote pickup and delivery for service appointments, and build chargers that would operate around-the-clock. Another big part of the tweaks to Model E is the continually unstable ground the entire electric project is built on. As part of understanding what dealers are facing and how to keep the electric wheels turning, Automotive News reports that the automaker held 11 meetings with dealers this year in six cities. Based on the feedback, more changes are coming to Model E as soon as next month.   During the roadshow, Ford told dealers to pause their investments into getting certified for Model E. This directive followed a corporate change in plans as Ford pulled investments in battery-electrics in favor of consumers' choice for hybrids. The head of Ford Blue — the internal-combustion-powered division that, with Ford Pro, has been paying the bills as Model E posts big losses — told AN, "We don't want them to make any decisions between now and the middle of June, when you can maybe have a more informed decision-making process based off what we work out with council in the next few weeks." One change has already been made public, the VP of EV programs telling an AutoNews business conference audience, “What weÂ’re finding is more dealers want to be involved in it and we donÂ’t want to be exclusive to just a handful, and so weÂ’re making a change where weÂ’re opening up that and not requiring as many certifications or investments for a dealer to participate in the EV revolution." Don't take that comment as a revelation; since the beginning, dealers complained about being excluded and needing to throw so much money at the program. Take that comment as Ford needing to find a better way in the "rapidly changing" environment. The official list of updates won't come until next month, when Ford meets its dealer council, and it should touch on topics beyond EVs.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.