Silver Tan Leather My Touch Sync Nav Naigation Dual Sunroof Certified Warranty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford files trademark application for 'Model E'

In early December, Ford filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the name "Model E." Historically, Ford never produced a Model E, and while automakers are known to file for trademarks they never use, some have wondered if the application might be used for a concept car.
Based on other recent events, though, it could be a legal move. In 2000 Ford sued an online start-up called Model E over the similarity of that name to Ford's industry-shaping Model T, but the judge dismissed the case citing lack of proper grounds. In August 2013, Tesla applied for trademark registration for Model E, and at the time, Ford said it would review the application. Tesla actually made two applications for Model E, one for automobiles and structural parts therefore, the other for "providing maintenance and repair services for automobiles," and there are plenty of theories about what the name could be applied to.
The Published for Opposition date for Tesla's applications is December 31, 2013, after which anyone who thinks they'd be harmed by Tesla being granted the trademark gets 30 days to register their issues. This is just speculation, but Ford's application - which was filed for automobiles only - might be about protecting what it sees as unwelcome encroachment on the name Model T, protection it wasn't able to enforce before when the stakes were only online and much smaller.

Ford adding second supplier for F-150 frames

Metalsa, the company that builds steel frames for the aluminum-bodied Ford F-150, is still having trouble providing enough frames to supply the two factories that build the pickup. The snafu is preventing Ford from selling as many of the country's best-selling truck as it could, and eating into profits - even though the bottom line is still breaking company records. According to The Wall Street Journal, Ford has picked Michigan company Tower International as a second frame supplier and expects to have inventory up to a proper level at the beginning of Q4 of this year. Neither Ford nor Tower would confirm the development - Automotive News got comments from a source and pieced together bits of info from Tower's financial statements and local press reports. Tower currently builds body structures for several vehicles, including the F-series, and the Bellevue, Ohio factory that will build F-150 frames previously manufactured frames for the Ranger and Econoline. According to a story in the local Sandusky Register, Tower will add one production line at the end of next month to begin shipping frames in October, and another line in April 2016. Something like 138 full-time workers and 364 robots are expected to carry out the work. Tower's most recent financial statement said that capital investment will be necessary to get everything set up, but the contract will be worth $140 million in yearly revenue.

Report: GM struggling to market turbo technology

In the automotive realm, marketing can sometimes prove just as important as the actual product. Take, for instance, Ford's well regarded EcoBoost technology, which couples turbocharging with direct injection to produce more horsepower and reduce fuel consumption. Would it surprise you to hear that General Motors has had similar technology on the market for over three years?
It's true. GM's first turbocharged, direct injected powerplants hit the market for the 2007 model. The 2.0-liter Ecotec mills put down an impressive 260 horsepower and a matching 260 pound-feet of torque, and they were lauded by the press in the engine bays of the Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Chevrolet HHR SS. But few people outside a core group of enthusiasts actually remember this fact.
Says Uwe Grebe, executive director of GM's global advanced engineering, "We didn't have a badge and say, 'This is the most important thing we will put on all our brochures.'" Ford, however, did just that, and it's EcoBoost engines are right at the tips of all our tongues when we discuss today's most advanced powerplants. So, how does The General fix its mistake?