1971 Lincoln Mark Iii - Low Original Mileage - Well Maintained - on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator reportedly facing numerous QC issues

A lengthy report in the Detroit Free Press delves into a range of quality control issues confronting the 2020 Ford Explorer and its luxury platform sibling, the 2020 Lincoln Aviator. Freep says it's been following the issue for two months, tapping various unnamed sources for information on the automaker's unorthodox route to resolution. Seems the problem is Explorers and Aviators leaving the production line at the Chicago Assembly Plant with flaws in areas like the chassis, transmission and suspension, said vehicles trucked to Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant (FRAP) outside of Detroit for repair. The estimates range from 10,000 to 18,000 vehicles affected, numbers so high that Ford has sought help from Roush Engineering in nearby Allen Park, and brought workers and managers from other plants in the Midwest to FRAP to get vehicles repaired and shipped to dealers. Ford hasn't shared the nature of the problems with anyone outside the company, including dealers and customers. Freep's sources are said to include workers who have provided photos of certain vehicles and of tents used to house parts at the FRAP repair site. The Explorer chassis allegedly has an unidentified problem that engineers are using X-rays to diagnose, and the transmission is having problems sensing when it's in park or going into park. Both the Explorer and Aviator have come off the line with HVAC units that only blow hot air. And the Aviator's height-adjustable suspension enters failure mode for unknown reasons. These come on top of quotidian mishaps common to every new vehicle, but that are meant to be sorted in pre-production, like missing emblems and trim pieces. They also come on top of a recall in early August issued for the Explorer and Aviator concerning the instrument cluster and parking brake, and another at the end of August over rear seatbacks that could collapse in a crash. An automaker spokesperson told Freep, "Making updates to preproduction models based on all-new platforms as they roll off the assembly line – is standard industry practice." Except these aren't pre-production, these are early production vehicles that paying customers and dealers are waiting for, and some of the affected vehicles have been pulled off dealer lots. Dealers say they are fine waiting for the trucks to get sorted out, and they'd rather have Ford fix the problems before the SUVs go to customers.

Again? Ford issues second 2015 Fusion and Lincoln MKZ seat belt recall

In 2016, Ford issued a recall for 603,392 2013-2016 Fusions and 2013-2015 Lincoln MKZs due to potentially faulty seat belts. Apparently, that wasn't the end of it. Ford announced another recall this week for the same issue, this time covering 108,399 2015 Fusions and MKZs.  In both cases, the seat belt anchor pretensioners are the issue. According to Ford, "increased temperatures generated during deployment of the driver or front-passenger seat belt anchor pretensioner could degrade the tensile strength of the cable below the level needed to restrain an occupant." Basically, heat could weaken the seat belts, and in extreme cases, they wouldn't be able to keep up proper safety standards. Ford knows of at least one injury that has occurred due to this issue.   The recall includes 103,374 vehicles in the United States, 4,002 in Canada, and 1,023 in Mexico. Possibly affected Fusions were built at Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant between August 1, 2014 and January 30, 2015. The MKZs were built at the Hermosillo Assembly Plant between August 1, 2014 and November 21, 2014.  As a fix, Ford says dealers will add an extra coating to the seat belt pretensioner cable for protection from the heat. If this recall might affect your vehicle, call your local Ford dealership and use recall reference No. 19S25. This news comes after Ford recalled 1.3 million Fusions and MKZs in 2018 due to the possibility that the steering wheels could fall off. Fusions have also been recalled due to the risk of rolling away.

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.