2013 Ford F150 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford sued over alleged 3.5-liter EcoBoost defects

Three Ford owners from Ohio have filed a lawsuit against the automaker over defects that they allege exist within the company's twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost engine. Automotive News reports that the lawsuit claims the engine "contained serious latent design, manufacturing, or assembly defects." Those defects, the suit claims, cause the vehicle to shake, misfire and lose power quickly.
Two of the plaintiffs, a married couple, own a 2010 Ford Taurus SHO, and allege they experienced a loss of power and stalling, while the third, an F-150 owner, claims he lost power while accelerating. In addition to the Taurus SHO and F-150, the 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost engine is also available in the Ford Flex, Explorer Sport and Lincoln MKT and MKS. Other three- and four-cylinder EcoBoost engines are not included in the suit. There have been no recalls associated with 3.5-liter V6 engine, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently not investigating the matter.
The plaintiffs, however, claim Ford has known about the problem, citing several technical service bulletins issued to dealers of the F-150 that suggest possible fixes. Ford had no comment for Automotive News, saying that it's yet to review the lawsuit, which was filed last Friday in Columbus, OH.

Ford opens research center in Silicon Valley

These days, the software running a vehicle's myriad of electronic systems seems to be getting nearly as much development focus from automakers as the traditional mechanical parts that keep a car going. Constantly improving that technology requires a lot of experimentation, though, and Ford is expanding its presence in Silicon Valley with the just-opened Research and Innovation Center Palo Alto to make that progress possible. Ford opened its first office in the country's technological hub in 2012 to draw talent and devise ways to deal with vast amounts of sensor data. Apparently, setting up shop in Silicon Valley was deemed a success because the Blue Oval decided to create this new lab in the Stanford Research Park to focus on five areas: connectivity, mobility, autonomous vehicles, customer experience and analytics. Among the center's potential projects, Ford is hoping to develop better natural speech recognition, which is absolutely vital for improving infotainment systems. Assuming the tech eventually works well enough, your voice might even be used to adjust a vehicle's power seats, according to the automaker. The Blue Oval is also letting engineers from Stanford University test autonomous driving algorithms on a self-driving version of the Fusion. In a smaller stakes venture, researchers are working to get a Nest smart thermometer to automatically adjust the temperature at home depending on if an owner's vehicle is leaving or coming back. To really show that its serious about these ventures, Ford hired Dragos Maciuca away from Apple as the center's technical leader. The automaker also wants to have 125 researchers at work there by the end of the year.

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.