1990 Ford Ranger Xlt Standard Cab Pickup 2-door 2.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video:

Pony-car sales war: Mustang vs. Camaro vs. Challenger [UPDATE]

Update: An earlier version of this story misstated the 2015 Mustang's weight when compared with previous models. Additionally, we have added comments from Chevrolet in the text. The Ford Mustang has blown past the Chevy Camaro as America's best-selling pony car, and in June, it wasn't even close. The 'Stang outsold the Camaro 11,719 to 8,611 cars. The Camaro remained ahead of the Dodge Challenger, which sold 6,845 units. Even though the Camaro did post an 11.5-percent sales improvement in June, the competition is arguably stronger than at anytime since the 1970s muscle-car era. The Mustang's sales leapt a whopping 53.6 percent, while the Challenger saw a gain of 56 percent. Several factors are weighing down Camaro sales, including its lame duck status. Chevy is launching a new generation of the Camaro this year that's more than 200 pounds lighter, offers a new turbo four-cylinder engine option, and has a nicer interior than the outgoing model. Put simply: wait a few months and you can get a better car. It's also unlikely Chevy will jack up the price much, as it's historically kept the Camaro within reach of everyday enthusiasts. While Chevy fans wait in anticipation for their new sports car, Ford and Dodge have downshifted. The new Mustang, which went on sale last year, is faster and more sophisticated than its predecessor. It also offers a 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder, which Ford has credited for the Mustang's recent uptick and makes up 36 percent of the car's sales, Ford analyst Erich Merkle said. View 17 Photos June's performance allowed the Mustang to widen its sales gap with the Camaro this year. Through the first five months, Ford sold 68,290 Mustangs, a 54.4-percent increased compared with 2014. Chevy sold 42,593 Camaros, an 8.7-percent decrease. The Challenger – long the No. 3 pony car in sales volume – has seen its sales surge 41 percent this year to 37,011 units. Spokesman Monte Doran said Chevy expected that 2015 would be a "relatively soft year" for the Camaro. "Mustang is taking advantage of years' worth of pent-up demand for an independent rear suspension," he said. "When Camaro introduced an IRS, in 2009, it helped make us the best-selling performance car in America.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.