2000 Ford F250 Super Duty Extended Cab 4x4 V10 With Plow on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should reflective paint earn automakers EPA credits?

No matter where you look around the world, governments are cracking down on vehicle emissions and aiming for higher fuel economy standards. Generally, automakers are pushing back against the increased regulation, and in the US, General Motors, Ford, and FCA US are looking for new compromises. The Big Three want to the EPA to grant them retroactive emissions credits for using tech that they claim reduces CO2 but not on the government agency's on-road testing. Among these technologies are things like reflective paint and glass, LED lights, ventilated seats, stop/start, and more efficient air conditioning compressors. Starting with the 2014 model year, the automakers can receive credits for a few grams per mile reductions on models with some of these solutions, according to Automotive News. However, the companies are also petitioning the EPA to make the credits apply to earlier vehicles with them, as well. The emissions advantages for systems like stop/start and less polluting AC refrigerants seem fairly obvious. For reflective paint and glass, the belief is that keeping a vehicle interior cooler should mean a lower need for air conditioning and therefore a decrease in CO2. Margo Oge, the former boss of the EPA's Office of Transportation Air Quality, told Automotive News these credits are part of the plan. "That's the whole point of what we tried to establish," she said. "We wanted companies to invest in and develop these technologies." The EPA wants vehicle emissions at the corporate average equivalent of 54.4 miles per gallon fuel economy by 2025, and so far that seems achievable. It will translate to less than 40 mpg on the EPA sticker. In a report last summer, the industry was about 10 grams per mile of CO2 better than the rules required, and that was solely based on 2012 model year vehicles. In an update for 2013, the companies were up to 12 grams per mile beyond targets. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Mark Humphrey / AP Photo Government/Legal Green Ford GM Emissions Fuel Efficiency FCA fca us

NHTSA investigating 250k F-150s for possible power brake failure

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into the 2011-2012 Ford F-150 with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 because of potential failure of the power braking assist. If a recall is required, it could affect an estimated 250,000 of the trucks. This investigation is prompted by NHTSA receiving 32 complaints about the electric vacuum assist pump allegedly failing in these trucks, which then causes the power braking assist to stop working. Drivers claim having no warning beforehand. There are also two reports of crashes that are purportedly linked to the problem, but the government agency lists no injuries. According to NHTSA, the issue may be getting worse because 60 percent of these allegations are from the past nine months. A preliminary evaluation doesn't necessarily lead to a recall, though. NHTSA uses them "to assess the cause, scope and frequency of the alleged defect." Ford spokesperson Kelli Felker tells Autoblog: "We will cooperate with NHTSA on this investigation, as we always do." Related Video: INVESTIGATION Subject : Brake Vacuum Pump Failure Date Investigation Opened: JUN 22, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15026 Component(s): SERVICE BRAKES, ELECTRIC , SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD F-150 2011-2012 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 32 complaints alleging electric vacuum assist pump failures resulting in loss of brake power assist and increased brake pedal effort in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 full-size pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engine. None of the complaints reported any warning indicators to alert the driver of brake power assist loss or the potential of increased stopping distance. Two reports alleged crashes due to increased brake pedal effort required to stop or slow the vehicle. The complaints show an apparent increasing trend, with approximately 60 percent of complaints received within the past nine months. A Preliminary Evaluation has been opened to assess the cause, scope and frequency of the alleged defect.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.