1998 - Ford - Mustang - Black on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford expands door-latch recall to 156k more vehicles, nearly 550k total

Ford is being inundated with recalls as of late. Just days ago it called in over 590,000 cars for a variety of issues. Now, the Blue Oval has announced an expansion of its door latch campaign to cover an additional 156,000 vehicles in North America. Counting the original 389,585 cars, this has brought the total to 545,906. Under this expansion, the same models are affected, but Ford is broadening the coverage dates in some cases. The recall covers the 2011-2014 Fiesta, 2013-2014 Fusion, and 2013-2014 Lincoln MKZ; there are 456,440 units in the US, 50,681 in Canada, and 38,785 in Mexico in need of repair. In these vehicles, a door might not latch because of a broken pawl spring tab. Even if a passenger can successfully close it, the faulty part could unlatch while driving. According to Ford, there are two allegations of doors bounding back and hitting a person. There's also one possible accident from a door opening and striking another vehicle. Dealers will replace all of the latches to fix the problem. Related Video: MAY 1, 2015 | DEARBORN, MICH. FORD EXPANDS DOOR LATCH SAFETY RECALL IN NORTH AMERICA DEARBORN, Mich., May 1, 2015 – Ford Motor Company is expanding a safety recall regarding door latches to include approximately 156,000 more vehicles at the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, bringing the total to 545,906 vehicles in North America. The door latch in certain vehicles may experience a broken pawl spring tab, which typically results in a condition where the door will not latch. If a customer is then able to latch the door, there is a potential the door may unlatch while driving, increasing the risk of injury. Ford is aware of a total two allegations of soreness resulting from an unlatched door bouncing back when the customer attempted to close it, and one accident allegation when an unlatched door swung open and struck the adjacent vehicle as the driver was pulling into a parking space. Affected vehicles include certain 2011-14 Fiesta vehicles built at Cuautitlan Assembly Plant, Nov. 3, 2009 to May 31, 2013; certain 2013-14 Fusion vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant, Feb. 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013; certain 2014 Fusion vehicles built at Flat Rock Assembly Plant, April 12, 2013 to April 26, 2013; and certain 2013-14 Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant, Feb. 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013. There are 456,440 vehicles in the United States and federalized territories, 50,681 in Canada and 38,785 in Mexico.

Ford files trademark application for 'Model E'

In early December, Ford filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the name "Model E." Historically, Ford never produced a Model E, and while automakers are known to file for trademarks they never use, some have wondered if the application might be used for a concept car.
Based on other recent events, though, it could be a legal move. In 2000 Ford sued an online start-up called Model E over the similarity of that name to Ford's industry-shaping Model T, but the judge dismissed the case citing lack of proper grounds. In August 2013, Tesla applied for trademark registration for Model E, and at the time, Ford said it would review the application. Tesla actually made two applications for Model E, one for automobiles and structural parts therefore, the other for "providing maintenance and repair services for automobiles," and there are plenty of theories about what the name could be applied to.
The Published for Opposition date for Tesla's applications is December 31, 2013, after which anyone who thinks they'd be harmed by Tesla being granted the trademark gets 30 days to register their issues. This is just speculation, but Ford's application - which was filed for automobiles only - might be about protecting what it sees as unwelcome encroachment on the name Model T, protection it wasn't able to enforce before when the stakes were only online and much smaller.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.