Original 1928 Sports Coupe on 2040-cars

Auto blog

China takes lead as GM's No. 1 market

It's happened. General Motors' biggest vehicle market - at least in terms of new model sales - is China. According to TheDetroitBureau.com, GM and its various Chinese joint venture operations enjoyed a 10.6-percent sales increase in the first half of 2013, selling almost 1.6 million units in the market. That puts GM China about 200,000 units ahead of its US sales totals over the same period - this, despite indicators that the communist nation's economy is losing momentum.
TDB notes that like GM, rival Ford has also enjoyed a robust 2013 in China thus far, with its sales up a whopping 47 percent to 407,721 units sold - 75,254 of them in June alone. Between the two US automakers, passenger car sales for the first half of 2013 are up around 14 percent, well ahead of the rest of the industry's 10-percent growth estimates for the market. Some of the sales growth may come as a result of an overall anti-Japan sentiment in China, though the American brands have long outsold their Japanese counterparts in the country.
By The General's own predictions, China will only continue to grow in sales importance. The company has designs on selling over five million cars a year in the market before the end of the decade, a total that figures to dramatically widen the gap versus its US totals - even if America's auto market makes a full recovery to the the salad days of over 17-million units a year.

2017 Ford Super Duty trucks recalled because the fuel tank could fall off

Bad news from Dearborn. Ford just announced a pair of recalls, including a particularly worrying flaw in the new F-Series Super Duty. According to Ford's official announcement, there are roughly 8,000 of its big trucks on the roads with a missing reinforcement bracket – if it's not there, the fuel tank could separate from the frame. Yes, Ford is basically saying the fuel tank could fall out. We don't need to explain why this would be a very bad thing. Fortunately, no owners have experienced said bad things – Ford claims it's unaware of any fires, injuries, or accidents resulting from the flaws. The Kentucky Truck Plant built the affected pickups between August 10 and September 17. The bulk of the vehicles are in the US – 7,103, to be precise. Another 964 are cruising around the frozen Canadian tundra, while two more are in "federalized territories." The other recall is smaller, but reaches across a broad swath of the Blue Oval's family vehicles. Ford says there are 1,352 Taurus sedans, Flex crossovers, Explorer SUVs – including the Police Interceptor Utility variant – and Lincoln MKTs equipped with the company's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 that could catch fire. In this case, the danger isn't a detached fuel tank, but an "improperly brazed turbocharger oil supply tube" that could leak and spill engine oil on the turbocharger. Again, Ford isn't aware of any fires, accidents, or injuries due to the flaw. Here's the breakdown of manufacturer dates and location: 2016 Ford Taurus vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 18, 2016 to Nov. 2, 2016 2016-17 Ford Flex vehicles built at Oakville Assembly Plant, Oct. 18, 2016 to Nov. 10, 2016 2017 Ford Explorer vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 15, 2016 to Nov. 12, 2016 2017 Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant on Nov. 2, 2016 2016-17 Lincoln MKT vehicles built at Oakville Assembly Plant, Oct. 18, 2016 to Nov. 10, 2016 As with the Super Duty recall, most of the affected cars, crossovers, and SUVs are in the US market. There are 126 units in Canada and six in the same "federalized territories" mentioned above. In the case of both recalls, dealers will inspect the affected parts and replace or add them as necessary. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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.