2003 Ford Windstar Lx Mini Passenger Van 4-door 3.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford F-150's aluminum body not expected to hurt resale value

A cloud of skepticism has hung over the 2015 Ford F-150 since even before it went on sale. The issue had nothing to do with the truck's capabilities but instead over reservations about the switch to aluminum body panels. The change helped shed about 700 pounds off the scales, but the lighter metal also came with the potential for higher repair costs. Edmunds even recently whacked its pickup with a hammer just to find out how much it would cost. However, this might not be a problem, because the latest calculations indicate resale value for the new F-150 is on the rise. The residual experts at ALG estimate that the 2015 F-150 is going to hold 58 percent of its value over the next three years, versus 52 percent for the 2014 model, according to Bloomberg. That figure also gives the Ford the highest forecasted resale value among American fullsize pickups. The 2015 Toyota Tundra leads the segment by holding 63 percent. Meanwhile, the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra both come in with 51 percent, and the Ram 1500 holds 46 percent. Finally, the 2015 Nissan Titan comes in at 42 percent. The researchers believe that the improvement in fuel economy for the 2015 F-150 at up to 26 miles per gallon highway offsets higher body repair costs. "We are giving credit for the aluminum construction in the fuel efficiency we're seeing," Eric Lyman, ALG vice president of industry insights, said to Bloomberg. "We are not putting in a negative adjustment for concerns around repair costs or durability associated with aluminum." Ford has long-been preparing for the switch to aluminum. The company purposefully designed the body sections to make repairs easier, and it also partially subsidized dealers' investments for new equipment to do the work. Related Video:

The next-generation wearable will be your car

This year's CES has had a heavy emphasis on the class of device known as the "wearable" – think about the Apple Watch, or Fitbit, if that's helpful. These devices usually piggyback off of a smartphone's hardware or some other data connection and utilize various onboard sensors and feedback devices to interact with the wearer. In the case of the Fitbit, it's health tracking through sensors that monitor your pulse and movement; for the Apple Watch and similar devices, it's all that and some more. Manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality. As evidenced by Volvo's newly announced tie-up with the Microsoft Band 2 fitness tracking wearable, car manufacturers are starting to explore how wearable devices will help drivers. The On Call app brings voice commands, spoken into the Band 2, into the mix. It'll allow you to pass an address from your smartphone's agenda right to your Volvo's nav system, or to preheat your car. Eventually, Volvo would like your car to learn things about your routines, and communicate back to you – or even, improvise to help you wake up earlier to avoid that traffic that might make you late. Do you need to buy a device, like the $249 Band 2, and always wear it to have these sorts of interactions with your car? Despite the emphasis on wearables, CES 2016 has also given us a glimmer of a vehicle future that cuts out the wearable middleman entirely. Take Audi's new Fit Driver project. The goal is to reduce driver stress levels, prevent driver fatigue, and provide a relaxing interior environment by adjusting cabin elements like seat massage, climate control, and even the interior lighting. While it focuses on a wearable device to monitor heart rate and skin temperature, the Audi itself will use on-board sensors to examine driving style and breathing rate as well as external conditions – the weather, traffic, that sort of thing. Could the seats measure skin temperature? Could the seatbelt measure heart rate? Seems like Audi might not need the wearable at all – the car's already doing most of the work. Whether there's a device on a driver's wrist or not, manufacturers seem to be developing a consensus that vehicles should be taking on some of a wearable's functionality.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.