2014 Ford F150 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

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.

Editors' Picks March 2021 | Ford Mustang Mach-E, Polestar 2, Land Rover Defender and more

The month of March was unofficial minivan month here at Autoblog. We drove all of them but the Kia Carnival, but don’t worry, you wonÂ’t have to wait much longer to read that review. Among all the family-toting machines, we drove some more exciting vehicles including the Land Rover Defender and a pair of up-and-coming EVs. It was a month of excellent cars, meaning that this monthÂ’s litter of EditorsÂ’ Picks is stacked. In case you missed FebruaryÂ’s picks, hereÂ’s a quick refresher on whatÂ’s going on here. We rate all the new cars we drive with a 1-10 score. Cars that are exemplary or stand out in their respective segments get EditorsÂ’ Pick status. Those are the ones weÂ’d recommend to our friends, family and anybody whoÂ’s curious and asks the question. The list that youÂ’ll find below consists of every car we rated in March that earned the honor of being an EditorsÂ’ Pick. 2021 Ford Bronco Sport 2021 Ford Bronco Sport First Edition View 32 Photos Quick take: Ford's baby Bronco is an authentic foil to the big Bronco 2-Door and 4-Door. It brings rugged styling, better-than-average off-road capability and thoughtful utility features to a generic segment of cars. Score: 8 What it competes with: Jeep Compass, Jeep Cherokee, Mazda CX-30, Subaru Crosstrek, Kia Seltos, Chevrolet Trailblazer Pros: Stellar design, excellent off-road, clever interior details throughout Cons: Pricier than most, average transmission, underwhelming interior quality and ambiance in lowest trims From the editors: Road Test Editor Zac Palmer — “I genuinely enjoy driving this cute crossover. It feels like a mini truck on the road, and Ford admirably translated the design from its big Bronco over to this Escape-based crossover. News Editor Joel Stocksdale — "The Bronco Sport isn't perfect, the transmission could use some work, and it's a little bumpy, but it's a characterful little thing with loads of style, great visibility and space, and impressive capabilities on and off road in the powerful Badlands form." In-depth analysis: 2021 Ford Bronco Sport Review | Bronco for the masses   2021 Land Rover Defender 2021 Land Rover Defender 110 View 64 Photos Quick take: The Land Rover Defender provides everything you'd hope for in a modern Land Rover: superlative off-road capability, surprisingly plush on-road demeanor, abundant interior space and abundant character. The base four-cylinder is likely all you'll need and lower trim levels provide more than enough equipment.