2002 Ford Explorer 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Least reliable cars and trucks of 2022

Related: Most reliable cars and trucks of 2022   Every year, Consumer Reports ranks new cars based on their predicted reliability. We often see Toyota, Lexus, and a few other automakers near the top. But on the other side of the coin, the list of least reliable vehicles sometimes contains surprises.   The organization surveys its members to determine the vehicles that exhibited the most problems over the prior year. Owners are asked about creaks and rattles, the durability of parts and trim, and mechanical issues. Consumer Reports assigns a weight to each problem and then uses them to create a score, with 100 being the best. Some familiar names appear on the list of least reliable vehicles (in order with the lowest predicted reliability score at the top), but there are a few eyebrow-raising models, followed by CR's score: Ford F-150 Hybrid: 4 Hyundai Kona Electric: 5 Lincoln Aviator: 8 Nissan Sentra: 9 Ford Explorer: 16 Chevrolet Bolt: 17 Chevrolet Silverado 1500/GMC Sierra 1500: 19 Jeep Gladiator: 21 Mercedes-Benz GLE: 23 Jeep Wrangler: 24 Consumer Reports noted that sedans are the most reliable vehicle category and found that trucks are far lower on the list. That said, the survey showed that trucks from American brands tended to have better reliability scores, so it’s surprising to see GMÂ’s big two and the Ford F-150 on the list. Part of their problematic ownership experience could be due to the fact that all three trucks have received recent updates, and the Ford was completely redesigned for 2022. New tech, fresh drivetrain components, and other improvements can upset the balance of reliability and make newer models look less dependable than their older counterparts. Related video: Green Chevrolet Ford GMC Hyundai Jeep Lincoln Mercedes-Benz Nissan Car Buying Truck Crossover Hatchback SUV Electric Hybrid Sedan Consumer Reports reliability

Ford to rebrand SVT as 999?

Ford operates a number of performance divisions around the world. There's SVT in the US, Team RS in Europe and Ford Performance Vehicles (FPV) in Australia. But the Blue Oval has been steadily integrating its performance operations into one unit, and here we might have our first indication of what it will be called.
A reader at Jalopnik sent in a survey in which respondents were asked to gauge the name for a new performance brand from a "major automotive manufacturer," and while the identity of that automaker was not disclosed, according to the survey, the automaker is considering the name 999 for its new go-fast unit.
As our compatriots point out, the 999 was Ford's first racecar, a rudimentary chassis with a 19-liter inline-four campaigned by Henry Ford around the turn of the 20th century. (Ford also used the number to designate a Fusion fuel-cell racer a few years back.) That could prove the tie-in Dearborn is looking for in rebranding its performance operations worldwide, replacing the letters SVT, RS and FPV globally under one name.

White House clears way for NHTSA to mandate vehicle black boxes

At present, over 90 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States today are equipped with event data recorders, more commonly known as black boxes. If the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gets its way, that already high figure will swell to a full 100 percent in short order.
Such automotive black boxes have been in existence since the 1990s, and all current Ford, General Motors, Mazda and Toyota vehicles are so equipped. NHTSA has been attempting to make these data recorders mandatory for automakers, and according to The Detroit News, the White House Office of Management Budget has just finished reviewing the proposal, clearing the way. Now NHTSA is expected to draft new legislation to make the boxes a requirement.
One problem with current black boxes is that there's no set of standards for automakers to follow when creating what bits of data are recorded, and for how long or in what format it is stored. In other words, one automaker's box is probably not compatible with its competitors.