1999 Ford Taurus Sho on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Ford Explorer problems gutted third-quarter sales

In early September, the Detroit Free Press published a feature noting numerous problems Ford's having with the 2020 Explorer and 2020 Lincoln Aviator launches. Issues with both SUVs, built at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, were so rife and dire that the automaker was trucking the vehicles 275 miles away to Michigan for repairs. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Explorer's third-quarter sales dropped 48 percent compared to the previous model in 2018, with dealers unable to get enough units on lots for customers. Nor is the snafu over: Automotive News reports that another "batch of about 2,500 Explorers in need of repairs" arrived recently in Michigan, and sales through the first nine months of 2019 are down 31 percent. Sales dips during model changeovers are to be expected as old inventory gets sold down and new production ramps up, but this is different. Ford U.S. sales boss Mark LaNeve told Bloomberg earlier this month, "We’ve got adequate inventory in our stores. For Q4, availability wonÂ’t be an issue. WeÂ’ll be able to hit our stride with Explorer starting now." It's hard to know whether that's true, with thousands of Explorers still piling into Michigan; the batch AN mentioned represents about 5 days of sales during an average month in 2018, before the drawdown and interruptions hampered matters. And when Consumer Reports tested the Ford Explorer it bought this summer, it titled the review, "2020 Ford Explorer drives nicely but has many flaws / Poor interior quality and a high price overshadow the SUV's improvements."   On top of that, the AN piece mentions a new impediment to uncorking the Explorer sales stream: Worker strife in the Chicago plant. Allegedly, "Roving groups of workers are intimidating other employees, creating a hostile environment, the people said. ThatÂ’s driving up turnover and leaving some vehicle assembly unfinished, contributing to the company having to complete the work at the Michigan factory or at dealerships, the people said." Ford's been fined twice before for the same kinds of issues at its plants, once in 1999, again in 2017, but a spokesperson said Ford isn't aware of any such problems now. The pressure otherwise has got to be unpleasant for everyone on the Explorer team, from CEO Jim Hackett down. The automaker was meant to be "turning the corner" in April, but as of now, shares are down, credit rating is down, earnings are down.

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.