Ford: F-150 Platinum on 2040-cars

Auto blog

How privacy fears are driving automakers in the age of the connected car [w/poll]

A recent GAO report concluded car companies don't adequately disclose how and why they share location data. As cars collect and store more and more data about the whereabouts of their drivers, automakers are responding to critics who say they should be more transparent about how those details are used. Ford is hiring a global privacy policy attorney to craft the company's customer privacy policies in the era of connected and autonomous cars. "In this emerging space, there is an important need to address customer privacy policies," reads a job description posted on the "people and careers" portion of the company's website. "As part of our compliance and ethics organization at Ford, this person will have an immediate and direct impact in shaping existing and future policy and corporate thinking in this area." Ford is creating the new position, based at its Dearborn headquarters, at a time technology advances are outpacing privacy protections. Earlier this year, a report from the federal government concluded car companies don't adequately disclose to motorists how and why they share location data. That report, from the Government Accountability Office, found many car companies did not describe how they shared location data, did not allow consumers to request their data be deleted and that there was a "wide variation" in how car companies retained vehicle-specific or identifiable location data. It noted there is increased risk of location data being used in ways "consumers did not intend." Ford was one of 10 companies the GAO surveyed while compiling its report. Customers are opting to share that data largely by using features like maps and turn-by-turn direction that are run by a vehicle's telematics unit. Depending on the company, it can be unclear how that data is collected, retained or shared. At the time the GAO report was issued, AAA, the nation's largest motoring club, urged carmakers to be more transparent in how they handle data and to offer stronger security protections. Shaping Autonomous Car Regulations At Ford, the new hire could change how the company handles that data. According to the job description, the successful applicant will, "demonstrate visionary thinking around privacy strategy – imagine how consumer and employee expectations around privacy may evolve and how business should adapt, develop approaches that maximize the benefit of data sharing for consumers and business, etc." (Emphasis from Ford).

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.