2003 Ford Taurus 175,107 Miles No Battery Have Key Starts W Jump Been Wrecked on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford files trademark application for 'Model E'

In early December, Ford filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the name "Model E." Historically, Ford never produced a Model E, and while automakers are known to file for trademarks they never use, some have wondered if the application might be used for a concept car.
Based on other recent events, though, it could be a legal move. In 2000 Ford sued an online start-up called Model E over the similarity of that name to Ford's industry-shaping Model T, but the judge dismissed the case citing lack of proper grounds. In August 2013, Tesla applied for trademark registration for Model E, and at the time, Ford said it would review the application. Tesla actually made two applications for Model E, one for automobiles and structural parts therefore, the other for "providing maintenance and repair services for automobiles," and there are plenty of theories about what the name could be applied to.
The Published for Opposition date for Tesla's applications is December 31, 2013, after which anyone who thinks they'd be harmed by Tesla being granted the trademark gets 30 days to register their issues. This is just speculation, but Ford's application - which was filed for automobiles only - might be about protecting what it sees as unwelcome encroachment on the name Model T, protection it wasn't able to enforce before when the stakes were only online and much smaller.

8 cars we're most looking forward to driving in 2015

Now that 2014 is officially in the books, it's time to look ahead. And following our list of the cars we liked best last year, we're now setting our sights at the hot new metal that's coming our way in 2015. Some of these, we've already seen. And some are still set to debut during the 2015 auto show season. But these are the machines that keep us going – the things on the horizon that we're particularly stoked to drive, and drive hard. Jeep Renegade Not the Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Not the Ford Mustang GT350. Not the new John Cooper Works Mini. Nope, I'm looking forward to the adorable, trail-rated Jeep Renegade. And that's because I really, really, really like our long-term Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk. I do not, however, care too much for the Cherokee's looks, and I really don't like its $38,059 price tag. The Renegade Trailhawk, meanwhile, promises much of the same rough-and-tumble character as its big brother, but at what we expect will be a more reasonable price (I'm personally wagering on the baby Jeep's off-road model starting at no more than $23,000). With a 2.4-liter four-cylinder and a nine-speed automatic, it should also be a bit easier to fill than the V6-powered Cherokee. Also, I can't help but love the way the Renegade looks. It's like someone took a Wrangler, squished it by 50 percent and then handed it off to George Clinton for a healthy dose of funk. The interior, with its bright, expressive trims and color schemes should also be a really nice place to spend some time. I'll be attending the Renegade's launch later this month, so I'll have a much shorter wait than my colleagues. Here's hoping the baby Jeep lives up to my expectations. – Brandon Turkus Associate Editor Mazda MX-5 Miata Here's an uncomfortable truth: I'd rather spend a day driving a properly sorted Mazda MX-5 Miata of any generation on a winding road than I would nearly any other vehicle, regardless of power, price or prestige. It's not just that I prize top-down driving and enjoy the Miata's small size because it gives me more road to play with. I just find there's more motoring joy to be had with high-fidelity handling and an uncorrupted car-to-driver communication loop than I do with face-distorting power or grip – let alone valet-stand gravitas. But perhaps most of all, I love Miatas because they can deliver that level of feedback and driver reward at modest speeds that won't put the locals on edge or endanger lives – you can use more of the car more of the time.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.