1965 Ford Thunderbird Special Landau 10th Anniv Edition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.

Toyota tops Consumer Reports best, worst used car values

We often mock Toyota for building boring, soulless cars, but a new study by Consumer Reports suggests that regardless of whether that's true, the company has some of the best used cars on the market. In its report on used cars from 2004-2013, the Japanese automaker had 11 vehicles among its brands on the list - more than any other automaker.
CR breaks the list down by cost and vehicle size, and Toyota has at least one entry at every price point and in nearly every segment. To score a recommendation, a vehicle had to perform well in the magazine's initial tests and score above-average reliability results. It also tried to only suggest cars with electronic stability control. Of the 28 recommended vehicles, Honda/Acura had the second most mentions at six, and Ford, Hyundai and Subaru managed two each.
The Detroit brands also made it to the list, but not in a positive way. Consumer Reports compiled a list of 22 vehicles it wouldn't recommend because "they have multiple years of much-worse-than-average overall reliability." General Motors had the most unrecommended models on the list at six, but Chrysler and Ford weren't far behind, with five cars each from their brands not making the grade. The full list of recommendations is available on CR's website.

Ford recalls Explorer and Lincoln MKC for fire hazard

The Basics: Ford will recall 5,536 examples of the 2016 Explorer and 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC. The Explorers have build dates between October 20, 2014, and January 28, 2016, at the Chicago Assembly Plant. The MKCs are from between November 25, 2013, and January 25, 2016, at the Louisville Assembly Plant. In total, there are 3,129 total affected examples of the 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 examples of the 2016 Ford Explorer. Of these, 1,543 are in the US and 3,993 are in Canada. The Problem: The combination of the engine block design and the block heater in these vehicles can cause the part to overheat when plugged in. Injuries/Deaths: None reported, but there are two cases of underhood fires in Canada. If you own one: Ford will begin notifying owners during the week of May 16, company spokesperson John Cangany tells Autoblog. Related Video: Ford issues safety recall for certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to replace engine block heaters Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 5,500 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to remove the heaters and replace them with an updated design. The engine block design, coupled with the particular block heater installed in these vehicles, causes the unit to be susceptible to overheating when the vehicle is parked and the block heater is plugged in –increasing the risk of an underhood fire. Ford is aware of two reports of underhood fires in Canada, but is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this issue. Affected vehicles include certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC vehicles built at Louisville Assembly Plant, Nov. 25, 2013 through Jan. 25, 2016 and certain 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 20, 2014 through Jan. 28, 2016. There are 5,536 vehicles affected by the issue, including 3,129 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles, with 1,543 of the affected vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 3,993 in Canada. Dealers will remove and replace the engine block heater with an updated design and, if needed, replace the cord at no cost to the customer.