04 Excursion Edie Bauer 4wd Diesel Xnice Loaded Tx! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Driving the GMC Canyon, and pour one out for the Camaro | Autoblog Podcast #812

In this episode of the Autoblog Podcast, Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore is joined by Road Test Editor Zac Palmer. They start by discussing the the cars they've been driving, including the 2023 GMC Canyon AT4, ECD Jaguar E-Type EV, ECD Land Rover Defender 110 and the Genesis GV60. Next, they hit the news starting with the Chevrolet Camaro production ending. Rumors about the Hyundai N Vision 74 are bandied about, and then the two discuss the latest McLaren iteration named the GTS, which is a refresh of the GT. Lastly, the pair discuss who they think were the most influential leaders in the automotive industry throughout 2023.  Send us your questions for the Mailbag and Spend My Money at: Podcast@Autoblog.com. Autoblog Podcast #812 Get The Podcast Apple Podcasts – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes Spotify – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast on Spotify RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Rundown Cars we're driving 2023 GMC Canyon AT4 ECD Jaguar E-Type EV ECD Land Rover Defender 110 2024 Genesis GV60 Performance AWD News Chevrolet Camaro productions ends The Hyundai N Vision 74 might reach production McLaren GTS revealed These were the most influential leaders in the automotive world in 2023 Feedback Email – Podcast@Autoblog.com Review the show on Apple Podcasts Autoblog is now live on your smart speakers and voice assistants with the audio Autoblog Daily Digest. Say “Hey Google, play the news from Autoblog” or "Alexa, open Autoblog" to get your favorite car website in audio form every day. A narrator will take you through the biggest stories or break down one of our comprehensive test drives. Related video: Aftermarket Green Plants/Manufacturing Podcasts Chevrolet Ford Genesis GM GMC Hyundai Jaguar Land Rover McLaren Technology Truck Convertible Coupe Crossover SUV Electric Luxury Off-Road Vehicles Performance Supercars

FCA UConnect fiasco could set over-the-air updates back years

Since cars have become more software dependent, most major automakers have been inching toward enabling over-the-air updates to keep vehicle electronics, ranging from infotainment systems to safety features, current. But there are only two car companies — Fiat Chrysler and Ford —± currently doing OTA updates, and on a limited basis. GM CEO Mary Barra announced last summer that the automaker will launch a new EV architecture and infotainment system capable of over-the-air updates "before 2020." The one exception, per usual, is Tesla. Since the release of the Model S almost six years ago, the maverick EV automaker has made routine OTA software updates a core part of its vehicle platforms and value proposition, and has sent out updates for everything from adjusting ride height to enabling Autopilot, largely without incident. When I've asked automakers why they can't do the same thing, I've heard reasons ranging from running afoul of their dealers (and archiac regulation) to security concerns. Automakers like Ford and General Motors say they want to act like tech companies, which routinely send out OTA updates for a wide range of devices, but overall the car industry still moves at a very cautious snail's pace. And when automakers do try to move faster and take more risks — unlike with a smartphone update, which people bitch about but live with — the consequences can be significant when things go wrong. That's the case with Fiat Chrysler America and its recent public-relations nightmare when an OTA update went awry. The update went out at the end of last week for the Uconnect system in late-model vehicles, and it made head units go into a near continuous reboot, which caused owners to not only lose access to entertainment features, but also critical functions like emergency assistance. Almost immediately, owners took to Twitter to express outrage, and FCA was caught flatfooted. A tweet went out on Monday on the UconnectCares Twitter account that read, "Certain 2017 & 2018 Uconnect systems may experience a reboot every 45-60 seconds. Our Engineering teams are investigating the cause and working towards a resolution.

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.