1965 Ford Mustang Fastback Gt A-code - True Gt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"

Porsche 911 tops a list of must-have classics, but No. 2 is more of a surprise

No surprise here: In Europe, the Porsche 911 is the most sought-after classic car. Surprise here: Slip-streaming the 911 in the most sought-after chart compiled by the Car & Classic marketplace is the Ford Mustang. Using the Google search engine as a means to pick the winners, as well as the average prices achieved on the “Car and Classic” website, the venerable 911 was tagged 1.45 million times per month according to data stretching back 15 years. The number of 911Â’s sold though the C&C marketplace was 21,141, at an average price of 58,409 pounds, or $74,300. FordÂ’s pony car, still a popular choice for buyers in Europe, placed second on the list with 1.2 million monthly searches. The average sales price over 15 years was 31,107 pounds ($39,570), and the number of older Mustangs sold reached a total of 8,332. Models that also finished among the charted top 10 include the Land Rover Range Rover, the Corvette, the ultra-classic British favorite Jaguar E-Type and the BMW 3 Series. “Whilst a 1973 Porsche 911 Carrera 2.7 RS could set you back the best part of GBP500,000 ($636,000), there are many more affordable models, which bring the average sale price of a 911 on Car & Classic to GBP58,000 ($73,800) – the third highest average selling price of any make and model on the site,” explained Dale Vinten of Car & Classic. According to the site, the Jaguar fetched the highest average selling price: a whopping 89,000 pounds, or $113,000. But thatÂ’s peanuts compared to a Series 1 Roadster in excellent condition, said Vinten. For that, “you can expect to spend up to GBP250,000 ($318,000), A Series 2 or 3 will cost less, as they are not as desirable, but in decent condition you can expect to pay around GBP40,000-GBP50,000. Even a barn find 1969 E-Type Series 2 Roadster can set you back to the tune of GBP33,000 ($42,000)." Launched in 2005, Car & Classic is among EuropeÂ’s most popular classic car clearinghouses. It also runs a stand-alone auction site.

NHTSA advances investigation of Ford Crown Victoria headlights

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into reports of suddenly failing headlights on 517,945 examples of the 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. The government started looking into this problem in April when the North Carolina Consumers Council filed a defect petition with the agency. Now, the inquiry has moved to the next step. According to NHTSA's documentation (as a PDF), it examined its own database and worked with Ford to come up with a total of 3,609 complaints of the front lighting control module suddenly failing. When this happens, drivers lose the low-beam headlights, but the high-beams can be used by holding the stalk. Sometimes turning the switch off and on fixes the issue. Additionally, there are 15 allegations of crashes, and one reported shoulder injury. NHTSA's preliminary evaluations "evaluate the scope, frequency, and consequence of the alleged defect" and don't necessarily lead to a recall. NHTSA looked into this problem once before in 2008 and 2009 and decided that a recall wasn't necessary. Ford also extended the warranty on the front lighting control module for these vehicles. INVESTIGATION Subject : Loss of headlights Date Investigation Opened: AUG 10, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15028 Component(s): EXTERIOR LIGHTING All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2003-2005 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 2003-2005 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: After receiving a defect petition (DP15002) concerning the loss of headlights and other exterior lighting in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure. The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066). Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off. In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.