1965 Ford Mustang on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalling 830,000 vehicles to replace side door latches

The Basics: Ford is conducting a recall for roughly 830,000 models. The affected vehicles include the 2013 to 2015 Ford C-Max, 2012 to 2015 Ford Focus, 2013 to 2015 Ford Escape, 2015 Lincoln MKC, 2015 Ford Mustang, and 2014 to 2016 Ford Transit Connect. The recall is focused primarily in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, California, Arizona, Hawaii, Georgia, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Washington, and Oregon as the problem mostly affects cars in states with warm weather. The Problem: The pawl spring tab in the side door latch in the affected vehicles could break, preventing the door from latching and could even cause the door to open while driving. Injuries/Deaths: There is one reported injury and one reported accident. The Fix: Dealers will replace the affected cars' side door latches. If you own one: Reach out to your local Ford dealer to schedule a service. Related Video: Related Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang: First Drive View 55 Photos News Source: FordImage Credit: Copyright 2014 Drew Phillips / AOL Recalls Ford Lincoln lincoln mkc

2020 Ford Explorer safer than old model; crash test ratings short of Top Safety Pick

The 2020 Ford Explorer three-row crossover has improved on the outgoing model in many ways. According to the IIHS, it has also improved in a number of safety categories, but not enough to earn a Top Safety Pick award. The culprit is not the headlight performance for once. The Explorer's headlights were given an "Acceptable" rating, which would be sufficient for Top Safety Pick, if not Top Safety Pick +. Where the Ford falls short is in the front small overlap driver-side crash test, in which it got the second highest "Acceptable" rating. The IIHS requires a "Good" rating in this category, whereas an "Acceptable" rating on the passenger side would be, well, acceptable for Top Safety Pick. According to IIHS, Ford will be reviewing the results to figure out what the issue is, and it will likely make revisions to future Explorers to improve the result. Other than the one test, the Explorer performed admirably. It received a "Good" rating in all other crash categories except the passenger-side small overlap that was not tested. Both its standard and optional forward collision prevention systems had the highest "Superior" ratings, with the standard one preventing a collision with a car at speeds of up to 25 mph, and the optional one avoiding a collision at 12 mph, and "nearly" preventing one at 25 mph. Headlights are rated as "Acceptable" and so is access to child seat LATCH anchors. Also worth noting is that the Explorer's crash test ratings apply to its luxurious twin the 2020 Lincoln Aviator, meaning it also doesn't get a Top Safety Pick rating. The forward collision system performed the same as in the Ford, and the only difference between the two was in headlight performance. The Lincoln's standard headlights, included on the base, Reserve and Grand Touring trims, have the second-lowest "Marginal" rating, but the optional headlights for those trims, and the standard ones on the Black Label trim, received the "Good" rating. Among three-row Explorer competitors, the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Santa Fe XL, Kia Telluride, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota Highlander all have a Top Safety Pick. The Hyundai Palisade, Mazda CX-9, Subaru Ascent, and the slightly smaller Kia Sorento and Volkswagen Tiguan all have a Top Safety Pick +. As for Lincoln Aviator competitors, the Cadillac XT6, Infiniti QX60, Lexus RX and Volvo XC90 get a Top Safety Pick. The Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class and two-row-only BMW X5 get the Top Safety Pick + rating. Related Video:      

Ford, Volvo, Google, Uber and Lyft form self-driving alliance

Five companies arguably leading the worldwide effort to develop autonomous cars said Tuesday they're forming an organization to lobby the federal government to better prepare America's roads for self-driving technology. The founding members include some of the biggest companies in the automotive, autonomous, and ride-sharing realms – Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo. Operating as the "Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets," they aim to work with lawmakers and regulators to clarify a disparate set of rules and regulations at both the state and federal levels that could hinder the deployment of autonomous cars. "The U.S. risks losing its leading position due to the lack of federal guidelines for the testing and certification of autonomous vehicles." – Hakan Samuelsson David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who issued the first set of autonomous-related policies in that role (pictured below), will serve as the group's counsel and spokesperson. "The best path for this innovation is to have one clear set of federal standards, and the Coalition will work with policymakers to find the right solutions that will facilitate the deployment of self-driving vehicles," he said in a written statement. In January, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said his department would accelerate efforts to craft such federal standards. Those efforts include holding two public hearings on standards, the second of which is scheduled to be held Wednesday in Palo Alto, California. Foxx signaled the intent to deliver them by June. Google has been leading the efforts to ensure such standards are national in scope, warning their cars could run afoul of state-specific laws should they cross state borders or if standards varies between the federal efforts and regional ones. The complexity of such efforts was underscored recently, when NHTSA agreed that Google's software could be considered the driver of a vehicle for the purpose of meeting federal motor vehicle standards, an interpretation that would conflict with preliminary California rules that mandate a licensed driver operate a self-driving car that comes equipped with human controls like a steering wheel and brakes. At South By Southwest last month, Jennifer Haroon, Google's self-driving car business leader, said the company couldn't accomplish its goals under those regulations.