Limousine Town Car 6 Passenger on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Lincoln Navigator gets lots of updates, still not all-new [w/video]

If there's one brand that could really use some fresh, all-new product, it's Lincoln. The MKC crossover is on the way and looks promising, but the just-revealed 2015 model year update of its fullsize Navigator would appear to stop somewhere short of being "all-new." This, despite replacing a product that's been on the market since 2007. Oh sure, there's a brash new face, complete with the company's love or hate split-wing grille, and the revised rear-end treatment does look better to our eyes (if overly familiar). But in the era of the bold new all-aluminum Ford F-150, the Navigator is still based on the outgoing model's all-steel bones, so it's more of an extensive mid-cycle refresh than a completely new piece.
Unlike the F-150, there's no aluminum suit on this black-tie bruiser
That's a shame, really, because the class the Navigator is playing in features a host of really modern, stylish, luxurious crossovers and sport utilities like the Cadillac Escalade, Land Rover Range Rover, Mercedes-Benz GL-Class and more. Unlike the F-150, there's no aluminum suit on this black-tie bruiser, but that's not to say it isn't bringing some new tech to the table in 2015. Under the hood, for example, is Ford's well-received 3.5-liter, twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6, putting out "at least" 370 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque. That's a solid engine, and should be a whole lot more spunky and efficient than the archaic 5.4-liter Triton V8 currently being employed in the outgoing model.

Ford faces class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles without brake override systems

A total of 20 Ford customers are suing the automaker in a class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles "vulnerable to unintended acceleration." According to Reuters, the suit names 30 models built between 2002 and 2010 with electronic throttle control systems but without a brake override system. Those include the 2004-2012 F-Series pickups and the 2005-2009 Lincoln Town Car. Adam Levitt, a partner with the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer says the plaintiffs in the case want "to be compensated for their economic losses by having overpaid for cars that contained defects." Levitt contends that the plaintiffs would not have bought their vehicles or paid less for them had they known there was no brake override system in place.
Ford began installing brake override systems in its vehicles beginning in 2010. In response to the lawsuit, Ford has pointed to research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that indicated that unintended acceleration is mostly caused by driver error, saying in a statement that, "NHTSA's work is far more scientific and trustworthy than work done by personal injury lawyers and their paid experts."
Belville et al v. Ford Motor Co. will be heard in US District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia.

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"