2004 Ford Mustang Gt Auto 40th Anniversary Leather 35k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM being sued over imploding Bosch fuel pumps in Duramax diesel trucks

Texas-based law firm Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez (HMG) this week filed a class-action lawsuit against General Motors over an alleged issue with Bosch CP4 fuel pumps. The suit claims Bosch designed the CP4 pump to work with European diesel fuel, which is thicker than U.S. diesel. When GM installed that pump in the 6.6-liter Duramax engine used from the 2011 to 2016 model years, the lawsuit claims the thinner U.S. fuel didn't provide enough lubrication, allowing air pockets to form in the fuel pump. That, in turn, allegedly let metal rub against metal inside the pump, causing the pump to eventually disintegrate and "send thousands of metal shards into the fuel injection system and every part of the engine." The Detroit News reported on the most recent lawsuit filed in Michigan's Eastern District Court, but the case is another piece of nationwide legal maneuvering going on since at least last September. Every U.S. truck maker used the Bosch CP4 fuel pump, and HMG originally went after all of them, as well as Bosch. On September 30, 2018, HMG filed a class-action suit in Texas on behalf of eight plaintiffs. The law firm wanted to prosecute the affair under RICO — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — and named 10 defendants: FCA US LLC, FCA North America Holdings, LLC, F/K/A Chrysler Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., Ford Motor Company, General Motors LLC, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, VM North America, Inc., and VM Motori S.P.A.  The firm filed another suit in Florida on Nov. 2, 2018, against the same 10 defendants, again under the RICO statute, this time on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs. We don't know how many other suits might have been filed, but the two suits mentioned apparently didn't have legs — the courts dismissed both quickly. So HMG shifted its strategy away from the RICO angle, and focused its efforts on GM, filing suit in California on Nov. 20, 2018. Instead of trying to catch 10 fish with a small net, HMG wants to score one fish with a big net. The results have borne more promise for the plaintiffs. In July this year, a judge in California denied GM's motion to dismiss, noting "the alleged defect is central to the vehicleÂ’s function." This latest suit filed on Aug. 6 in Detroit singles out GM again.  The Bosch CP4 is known to be problematic, however.

Porsche, Jaguar continue dominance in 2015 JD Power APEAL study

The top of JD Power's 2015 APEAL Study has not changed much in the last year. Porsche remains No. 1 with Jaguar nipping at its heels, although both premium brands saw their overall score fall compared to 2014. For those that need a refresher, the APEAL Study looks at how "gratifying" a vehicle is to own and drive, rating cars and brands on a 1,000-point scale. The industry average for 2015 has increased from 794 to 798, while the total number of automakers that finished above the curve increased from 16 to 20. While Porsche and Jaguar finished at the top, their scores dropped eight and seven points, respectively, to 874 and 855. The top "non-premium" brand was Mini, which scored an impressive 825, up from 795. If the BMW-owned British marque is still a bit too premium for your tastes, last year's non-premium winner, Hyundai, did climb five points and is this year's runner up. At the opposite end of the scale, Smart sits at the very bottom of the rankings, with a score of 683 (it didn't appear on the 2014 rankings). Fiat also dropped, from fourth worst in 2014 to second worst in 2015, despite the 500 being named most appealing city car. Subaru made an impressive climb, from third worst to seventh, falling just 10 points shy of the industry average and two points south of the non-premium average. In the individual vehicle segments, eight brands earned multiple awards, with Ford, Chevrolet, and Porsche earning three apiece. Surprise segment victories included the new Ford Expedition, which beat out Chevy's popular Suburban. The Infiniti QX80 bested the likes of the Cadillac Escalade and Range Rover for best large luxury SUV, and the Dodge Challenger beat its muscle car rivals from Ford and Chevy. Most of the victories, though, were quite predictable. The Mazda6 and CX-5 took wins for the midsize sedan and compact SUV categories respectively, while the Volkswagen Golf captured the compact car win. The Ford F-150 won the large pickup category, while the Porsche Cayman was named most appealing compact premium sporty car. Check out the official release on the 2015 APEAL Study, available below, from JD Power. 2015 U.S. APEAL Study Results The latest safety-related technologies are among the drivers of customer satisfaction with new vehicles, according to the J.D. Power 2015 U.S.

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.