1984 Ford Ranger on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is this the 2017 Ford Fusion?

Thanks to the sharp eyes of an anonymous tipster, you're looking at what may very well be the 2017 Ford Fusion. We know Ford's midsize sedan is in line for a makeover, and judging by the spy shots we've already seen, the somewhat blurry photo above matches what we're expecting to see. Styling updates won't be major, which is probably wise considering how well-received the current car's overall look was when it debuted as a 2013 model. The most immediately obvious styling tweak is a more taut fascia, with a grille that's pulled wider and pointier than the current Fusion. A shapely pair of headlights flank that new grille, and at the lower corners, angular new blades that may or may not house driving lights are new decorations to the Fusion's face. We don't see any changes to the car's bodysides, and with just one angle to dissect, we'll just have to guess at what the next Fusion will look like from the rear. Take a good look at the image above and let us know what you think. Is this indeed the 2017 Ford Fusion, and if so, is it a step in the right direction? Related Video: News Source: Ford (PDF link) Design/Style Ford Sedan

2020 Ford Explorer safer than old model; crash test ratings short of Top Safety Pick

The 2020 Ford Explorer three-row crossover has improved on the outgoing model in many ways. According to the IIHS, it has also improved in a number of safety categories, but not enough to earn a Top Safety Pick award. The culprit is not the headlight performance for once. The Explorer's headlights were given an "Acceptable" rating, which would be sufficient for Top Safety Pick, if not Top Safety Pick +. Where the Ford falls short is in the front small overlap driver-side crash test, in which it got the second highest "Acceptable" rating. The IIHS requires a "Good" rating in this category, whereas an "Acceptable" rating on the passenger side would be, well, acceptable for Top Safety Pick. According to IIHS, Ford will be reviewing the results to figure out what the issue is, and it will likely make revisions to future Explorers to improve the result. Other than the one test, the Explorer performed admirably. It received a "Good" rating in all other crash categories except the passenger-side small overlap that was not tested. Both its standard and optional forward collision prevention systems had the highest "Superior" ratings, with the standard one preventing a collision with a car at speeds of up to 25 mph, and the optional one avoiding a collision at 12 mph, and "nearly" preventing one at 25 mph. Headlights are rated as "Acceptable" and so is access to child seat LATCH anchors. Also worth noting is that the Explorer's crash test ratings apply to its luxurious twin the 2020 Lincoln Aviator, meaning it also doesn't get a Top Safety Pick rating. The forward collision system performed the same as in the Ford, and the only difference between the two was in headlight performance. The Lincoln's standard headlights, included on the base, Reserve and Grand Touring trims, have the second-lowest "Marginal" rating, but the optional headlights for those trims, and the standard ones on the Black Label trim, received the "Good" rating. Among three-row Explorer competitors, the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Santa Fe XL, Kia Telluride, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota Highlander all have a Top Safety Pick. The Hyundai Palisade, Mazda CX-9, Subaru Ascent, and the slightly smaller Kia Sorento and Volkswagen Tiguan all have a Top Safety Pick +. As for Lincoln Aviator competitors, the Cadillac XT6, Infiniti QX60, Lexus RX and Volvo XC90 get a Top Safety Pick. The Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class and two-row-only BMW X5 get the Top Safety Pick + rating. Related Video:      

GM being sued over imploding Bosch fuel pumps in Duramax diesel trucks

Texas-based law firm Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez (HMG) this week filed a class-action lawsuit against General Motors over an alleged issue with Bosch CP4 fuel pumps. The suit claims Bosch designed the CP4 pump to work with European diesel fuel, which is thicker than U.S. diesel. When GM installed that pump in the 6.6-liter Duramax engine used from the 2011 to 2016 model years, the lawsuit claims the thinner U.S. fuel didn't provide enough lubrication, allowing air pockets to form in the fuel pump. That, in turn, allegedly let metal rub against metal inside the pump, causing the pump to eventually disintegrate and "send thousands of metal shards into the fuel injection system and every part of the engine." The Detroit News reported on the most recent lawsuit filed in Michigan's Eastern District Court, but the case is another piece of nationwide legal maneuvering going on since at least last September. Every U.S. truck maker used the Bosch CP4 fuel pump, and HMG originally went after all of them, as well as Bosch. On September 30, 2018, HMG filed a class-action suit in Texas on behalf of eight plaintiffs. The law firm wanted to prosecute the affair under RICO — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — and named 10 defendants: FCA US LLC, FCA North America Holdings, LLC, F/K/A Chrysler Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V., Ford Motor Company, General Motors LLC, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, VM North America, Inc., and VM Motori S.P.A.  The firm filed another suit in Florida on Nov. 2, 2018, against the same 10 defendants, again under the RICO statute, this time on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs. We don't know how many other suits might have been filed, but the two suits mentioned apparently didn't have legs — the courts dismissed both quickly. So HMG shifted its strategy away from the RICO angle, and focused its efforts on GM, filing suit in California on Nov. 20, 2018. Instead of trying to catch 10 fish with a small net, HMG wants to score one fish with a big net. The results have borne more promise for the plaintiffs. In July this year, a judge in California denied GM's motion to dismiss, noting "the alleged defect is central to the vehicleÂ’s function." This latest suit filed on Aug. 6 in Detroit singles out GM again.  The Bosch CP4 is known to be problematic, however.