1972 Ford F100 Shortbed 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Are we about to see a real SUV revival?

Now that the marketplace has been oversaturated with cute-utes, crossovers, and CUV coupes, are we about to see a resurgence of real, honest-to-God SUVs? Ummm... maybe. The stars seem to be aligning in that direction, at least that's the sense I'm getting. We know an all-new Jeep Wrangler is only a few auto shows away; and that Jeep is about to introduce a new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk for 2017, in the same rugged spirit of the successful Cherokee and Renegade Trailhawks. Ford has hinted at a neo-Bronco, after showing the concept above in 2014 to wet the mouths of all those Duck Dynasty-types out there. And, and... wait for it... I recently learned that Subaru sent a questionnaire out to some Forester owners asking if they might be interested in an off-road package if it were offered. The items listed were pretty hardcore, serious stuff, such as: integrated tow/recovery hooks, additional ground clearance, more rugged wheels, skid plates, altimeter, front-view off-road camera, improved approach and departure angles, advanced differentials, Inclinometer, full-size spare tire, upgraded off-road suspension components, more aggressive tires, off-road driving mode (engine, transmission, throttle, and steering settings), more rugged styling, low-range gearing, and a more advanced traction management system. Folks that's not my wish list (well, actually it is), but those are words from Subaru, asking if that's what customers would like to see. Need proof? Go to the SubaruForester.org website. It's in a discussion there. So... no promises or guarantees here, and feel free to call me a rumormonger if you like; but the next few years could prove very interesting for those who actually do go off road. If this pans out, remember, you read it here first. Related Video: Image Credit: Ford Ford Jeep Subaru Crossover SUV Off-Road Vehicles open road

Here's what the UAW will be angling for in next year's contract negotiations

The United Auto Workers union is about to enter a new round of negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, and this time, the focus is on the end of the two-tier wage system. Introduced in 2007, the two-tier wage system was enacted to allow General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to categorize its hourly employees under two categories: Tier 1 for veteran employees with full rights and benefits, and Tier 2 for short-term or entry-level employees compensated under a different schedule. The idea was that the system would permit the automakers to invest more in their plants and hire new employees as part of their respective recovery plans without being saddled with all the costs associated with hiring full-time employees. Now that the automakers are (more or less) back on their proverbial feet, however, the UAW wants to see an end to the two-tier system, and will likely make that a center-point of its negotiations next year to replace the current arrangement that is scheduled to end in September 2015. Not all members of the UAW will necessarily be interested in ending the two-tier system, however. According to The Detroit News, some Tier 1 workers may be more interested in negotiating a raise in their hourly rate – something which they haven't received in almost a decade. Tier 2 workers, meanwhile, may be more motivated to keep the tiered system in place, as their arrangement includes provisions for profit-sharing payments that have seen the automakers pay out billions to so-called short-term employees in lump-sum payments. Reconciling the two competing demands from two categories of union members and presenting a united front in negotiations may prove the biggest challenge for the UAW's new president, Dennis Williams. And with the right to strike – something which was suspended during the last round of negotiations in 2011 – the union has a bigger bargaining chip in its pocket.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.