4dr Sedan Sel Fwd Low Miles Automatic 2.5l 4 Cyl Black 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:

2015 Ford Mustang GT Line-Lock Burnout

In this brief Short Cut, Autoblog's Steven Ewing demonstrates Line-Lock on the 2015 Ford Mustang GT. Accessed through an on-screen performance menu, the feature temporarily locks the front brakes to help you heat up the rear tires for better traction, as you would for drag racing. The result? A 15-second smokescreen.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.