2013 Ford Escape Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford looks to protect logo from Toronto mayor followers

One is a member of the Detroit Three and the maker of the Mustang, Fusion, Explorer and F-150. The other is an admitted loudmouthed, drunk-driving, crack-smoking mayor in Canada. Unfortunately for one, it shares its name with the other. Yes, Ford Motor Company is going to great lengths to keep its iconic Blue Oval logo from being appropriated by supporters of besieged Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
At a United Way event earlier this week, some of Mayor Ford's fans showed up with shirts that featured the automaker's logo with the words "Ford Nation," on them. Naturally, Mayor Ford signed them. FoMoCo was quick to issue an unhappy statement:
"Ford did not grant permission for use of its logo. We view it as an unauthorized use of our trademark and have asked it to be stopped," spokesperson Jay Cooney said. There was also a statement from Ford of Canada's Twitter account after a user alerted the company:

Who would win in a race if the Super Bowl teams were cars?

Until the last down is played this Sunday, we will have the annoyance pleasure of listening to analysts bicker between who will win the Super Bowl, not unlike automotive analysts who do the same thing with cars. If I had a dollar for every conversation about what car would win against another on a specific track, I wouldn't be buying the raw avocados this year for my guacamole. Instead I would be purchasing organic avocados and have the guacamole served in a Ferrari-themed bowl. Yes, those exist. Even so, we still watch year after year knowing full well that the pre-game analysis typically adds up to less than what is left over in the chip bowl after the last guest leaves. Let's take a different approach to analysis this year, let's compare these teams to their vehicle equivalent to decide who would win in a fair race. How do you determine a fair race? When I think of a fair race I think of the Nurburgring. A track that is 12.9 miles, has 1,000 feet of elevation change, and is famously nicknamed The Green Hell by famed driver Jackie Stewart. Although your Supra may beat The Flash himself in a straight line, chances are once you push it to the limits on a 12.9-mile track your brakes will smell like a bonfire and your suspension will have gone into cardiac arrest twice. So if we're racing The 'Ring, what are we driving? To best answer that question we must determine what characteristics define these teams. Not being someone who knows more about my fantasy league than my significant other, I can only go off what I have heard from "experts." The Panthers are honestly known for Cam Newton. Cam is a versatile, fast, brash, and fairly young quarterback. He apologizes for nothing and has Ali-like confidence that shows in his choice of Liberace-type attire. Although he looks to be the favorite, he hasn't yet won a Super Bowl and the team's second-half performances are less than climatic. In racing terms, he has won a lot but no one has seen him race in the dark at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The Panthers have a ton of acceleration, a brand new chassis, and a driver who is hungry for that first big win. On the other side of the track are the Broncos. It seems as though the Broncos are known for two things, a nostalgic quarterback and a defense that could strike fear into a Honey Badger. If the Broncos were just one component of a vehicle they would be the brakes, and these brakes are outfitted for a locomotive.

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.