2002 Ford F350 Xlt Crew Cab 4x4 Dually 7.3 Liter Power Stroke Diesel 2nd Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Court puts kibosh on apartheid lawsuit against Ford, Daimler

Ford and Daimler have scored a major victory in a long-running lawsuit filed in US federal court by unnamed South African nationals. The suit alleges that both manufacturers and their subsidiaries sold their vehicles to the South African military, despite knowing that they'd be involved in violently putting down anti-apartheid protesters.
According to Reuters, South African plaintiffs filed the case under the 223-year-old Alien Torts Statute, a law which allows foreign nationals to file charges in US courts for perceived breaches of what was originally international law, but now more closely relates to violations of human rights.
And while the case - which also involves computer manufacturer IBM - has been tied up in federal courts for years, a recent case from the Supreme Court struck down a similar suit against Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), arguing that the ATS doesn't apply to corporations or to conduct if it occurred outside the US. In short, the law applies to individuals, but not corporations like Ford or Daimler. A US appeals court ruled that the conditions apply in this case, potentially drawing this long-running saga to a close, as the defendants will now be allowed to request that the case be dismissed in district court.

Ford applies to trademark term 'Lincoln eGlide'

There's an epilogue to Ford's recent announcement that it's giving up on a battery-electric Lincoln co-developed with Rivian. The MachEClub forum discovered that just a week ago, Ford applied with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the term "Lincoln eGlide." The goods and services category details use for "Motor vehicles, namely, passenger automobiles, sport utility vehicles, electric vehicles and structural parts and fittings; electric vehicles, namely, passenger automobiles, sport utility vehicles, and structural parts and fittings." Living in an age where a small "e" is shorthand for "electric," and Ford having specified electric vehicles in the patent, the go-to guess is that this is for an electric vehicle. The inclusion of non-electric motor vehicles injects a little fuzziness. Tesla's trademark on the Model S specifies "electric automobiles" only, whereas Rivian's trademark for the R1T seeks coverage for "land vehicles" and just about every part found in or on a land vehicle.   Since Ford must have known about the end of the Rivian effort when it applied for the trademark, we suppose Lincoln has got some kind of eGlide coming no matter what. Lincoln refers to the theme of its latest cabin designs, as in the Aviator and Corsair, "Quiet Flight," and the road-scanning adaptive suspension on the Lincoln Aviator is called "Air Glide," neither term being trademarked. This leads our suspicions to eGlide becoming a vehicle component that could potentially serve a model with any powertrain, not necessarily battery-electric only, and eGlide won't be the name of the Lincoln EV that Ford says is still on the way. Another clue is that Ford included the word "Lincoln" in the term. Trademarked vehicle names such as Aviator and Corsair don't include the make, but services for vehicles do, such as the trademarks for Lincoln Connect and Lincoln Co-Pilot 360. We'll admit that a little bit of hope informs this line of thinking as well. Ford having done Lincoln the fabulous service of giving Lincolns terrific names, we'd be aghast if the Corsair and Navigator had to share showroom space with an eGlide. We've no choice but to wait for a retail product to provide answers. In the meantime, if we could just get to the bottom of this "Fastor Charge" trademark, and what's this bit about "Vandemonium?"   Related Video: