Ford Model T Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Ford Explorer nabs IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating after updates

The 2020 Ford Explorer has been named a Top Safety Pick+ by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the agency's best rating. The redesigned Explorer initially fell short of that mark, however, only making the grade after Ford introduced a running change to the vehicle's design starting in May 2020 — a change made to the 2020 Lincoln Aviator as well. To achieve a Top Safety Pick+ award, a vehicle must have a Good performance rating in all six of the agency's crash tests. It also must have Acceptable or better ratings for all of its available headlamps and must earn Advanced or Superior ratings for its automated collision avoidance systems in tests of their performance against pedestrians and other vehicles. The 2020 Explorer initially achieved only an Acceptable performance in the IIHS's driver's-side small-overlap crash test, as the agency found a risk of injury to the driver's left foot due to intrusion into the footwell. Ford subsequently modified the design of the front subframe in a running change to Explorers and to Lincoln Aviators built after May 2020. The modified Explorer was re-tested, and this time the model achieved a Good performance in the driver's small-overlap test. That, combined with a Superior performance in both tests of the standard collision-avoidance system plus Acceptable ratings for both headlight systems, pushed the 2020 Explorer over the goal line to Top Safety Pick+. The Aviator, which shares the Explorer's platform, has received the same modification and achieves the same crashworthiness ratings. However, its standard headlights are judged Marginal, and therefore the 2020 Aviator achieves only the Top Safety Pick rating (even though its optional curve-adaptive LED headlights are judged Good). Related Video:

Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost sales robust in early going

Okay, okay, okay, so I was just a smidge wrong. Those that read my review of the Ford Fiesta with the new 1.0-liter, EcoBoost engine will know that while I really enjoyed the torquey little three-cylinder, I was concerned that Ford's decision to force 1.0-liter owners into a manual transmission, steel wheels and one trim level might hurt sales of the new engine. I was also concerned that the promised 45-mile-per-gallon highway rating wouldn't be enough to tempt buyers into trying an engine that's so far outside of what the general public is use to. My concerns, though, seem to have been for naught.
While not doing a booming business on the triple-equipped Fiesta, Ford is seeing a take rate of four to eight percent per month in the engine's first few months on sale. Now, four to eight percent might not sound like a lot - if, like last year, the Fiesta sells around 71,000 units, there'd be barely 5,600 1.0-liter models on the road. It is also small potatoes relative to the take rate on EcoBoost-equipped vehicles across the Ford range, which US sales analyst Erich Merkle estimates to be roughly 35 to 40 percent of retail sales. Still, according to The Detroit News, the 1.0-liter is getting adopted at roughly the same rate as the sparkling Fiesta ST, which should be a solid indication of just how well this little engine is doing.
The 1.0-liter's success "really speaks volumes, not just to what we're doing with the Fiesta, but with EcoBoost in general," Merkle told Autoblog.

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.