2001 Crown Vic, P-71 Police Package. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Feds looking into Ford Explorer exhaust leak complaints

There may be a burgeoning problem with exhaust leaks in the 2011-2014 model year Ford Explorer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is examining multiple complaints of a gasoline smell in the cabin of these SUVs. However, the exact cause of this problem is still unknown.
"The agency is reviewing all available data and will take appropriate action as warranted," said a NHTSA spokesperson in an email to Automotive News. Owners seem to generally complain on the regulator's website of the smell entering the cabin through the air vents. At this time, the government organization has not yet opened an official investigation into the problem, though. When it does begin inspecting vehicles, NHTSA posts a detailed breakdown of its public data online.
Similar problems have been reported about the Explorer in the past, though. In 2013, Ford issued a recall for the 2013 model year of the SUV due to a fuel leak that could cause drivers to smell a gasoline odor and repaired them again later for another possible leak. In response to Autoblog's questions, Ford responded via email: "We are not aware of a NHTSA investigation. We are currently reviewing the case and in the event that any action is required, we will address it promptly."

Malcolm Gladwell reflects on engineering, recalls, and compromise

Journalist Malcolm Gladwell has made a career taking on big, complicated topics and humanizing them to make the unwieldy understandable. He has already done this in bestsellers like The Tipping Point and Outliers, and now he has brought the same approach to automotive recalls in a long piece for The New Yorker. The article titled The Engineer's Lament is framed around an interview with the former head of Ford's recall office about the famous Ford Pinto campaign where the position of the compact's fuel tank could cause it to explode in rear-end collisions. Plus, there are detours into Toyota's unintended acceleration cases and the General Motors ignition switch problem. While all the history is illuminating, the heart of the story comes from an examination at the thought process of engineers, and how their thinking differs from other professions. Gladwell comes off as sympathetic to auto engineers in this piece. While he admits that they often approach problems in a sterile way, the writer doesn't try point that out as a failing. It's merely a fact to be understood. The story itself is quite lengthy, but well worth a read if you have the time for an insiders view into how these recalls are assessed on the inside.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.