2013 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Low Miles Suv 3.6l V6 Gecko Pearl Lift Custom Wheels on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bring back the Bronco! Trademarks we hope are actually (someday) future car names

Trademark filings are the tea leaves of the auto industry. Read them carefully – and interpret them correctly – and you might be previewing an automaker's future product plans. Yes, they're routinely filed to maintain the rights to an iconic name. And sometimes they're only for toys and clothing. But not always. Sometimes, the truth is right in front of us. The trademark is required because a company actually wants to use the name on a new car. With that in mind, here's a list of intriguing trademark filings we want to see go from paperwork to production reality. Trademark: Bronco Company: Ford Previous Use: The Bronco was a long-running SUV that lived from 1966-1996. It's one of America's original SUVs and was responsible for the increased popularity of the segment. Still, it's best known as O.J. Simpson's would-be getaway car. We think: The Bronco was an icon. Everyone seems to want a Wrangler-fighter – Ford used to have a good one. Enough time has passed that the O.J. police chase isn't the immediate image conjured by the Bronco anymore. Even if we're doing a wish list in no particular order, the Bronco still finds its way to the top. For now (unfortunately), it's just federal paperwork. Rumors on this one can get especially heated. The official word from a Ford spokesman is: "Companies renew trademark filings to maintain ownership and control of the mark, even if it is not currently used. Ford values the iconic Bronco name and history." Trademarks: Aviator, AV8R Company: Ford Previous Use: The Aviator was one of the shortest-run Lincolns ever, lasting for the 2003-2005 model years. It never found the sales success of the Ford Explorer, with which it shared a platform. We Think: The Aviator name no longer fits with Lincoln's naming nomenclature. Too bad, it's better than any other name Lincoln currently uses, save for its former big brother, the Navigator. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree, though. Ford has made several customized, aviation themed-Mustangs in the past, including one called the Mustang AV8R in 2008, which had cues from the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet. It sold for $500,000 at auction, and the glass roof – which is reminiscent of a fighter jet cockpit – helped Ford popularize the feature. Trademark: EcoBeast Company: Ford Previous Use: None by major carmakers.

Stellantis ready to kill brands and fix U.S. problems, CEO Tavares says

  MILAN — Stellantis is taking steps to fix weak margins and high inventory at its U.S. operations and will not hesitate to axe underperforming brands in its sprawling portfolio, its chief executive Carlos Tavares said on Thursday. The warning for lossmaking brands is a turnaround for Tavares, who has maintained since Stellantis was created in 2021 from the merger of Italian-American automaker Fiat Chrysler and France's PSA that all of its 14 brands including Maserati, Fiat, Peugeot and Jeep have a future. "If they don't make money, we'll shut them down," Carlos Tavares told reporters after the world's No. 4 automaker delivered worse-than-expected first-half results, sending its shares down as much as 10%. "We cannot afford to have brands that do not make money." The automaker now also considers China's Leapmotor as its 15th brand, after it agreed to a broad cooperation with the group. Stellantis does not release figures for individual brands, except for Maserati which reported an 82 million euro adjusted operating loss in the first half. Some analysts say Maserati could possibly be a target for a sale by Stellantis, while other brands such as Lancia or DS might be at risk of being scrapped given their marginal contribution to the group's overall sales. Stellantis' Milan-listed shares were down as much as 12.5% on Thursday, hitting their lowest since August 2023. That brings the loss for the year so far to 22%, making them the worst performer among the major European automakers. Few automotive brands have been killed off since General Motors ditched the unprofitable Saturn and Pontiac during a U.S. government-led bankruptcy in the global financial crisis in 2008. Tavares is under pressure to revive flagging margins and sales and cut inventory in the United States as Stellantis bets on the launch of 20 new models this year which it hopes will boost profitability. Recent poor results from global carmakers have heightened worries about a weakening outlook for sales across major markets such as the U.S., whilst they also juggle an expensive transition to electric vehicles and growing competition from cheaper Chinese rivals. Japan's Nissan Motor saw first-quarter profit almost completely wiped out on Thursday and slashed its annual outlook, as deep discounting in the United States shredded its margins. Tavares said he would be working through the summer with his U.S. team on how to improve performance and cut inventory.

FCA to appeal reduced judgment in Georgia Jeep case

FCA is appealing the $40 million verdict against it in a case in Georgia where a four-year-old boy died in a fire in a Jeep Grand Cherokee, according to The Detroit News. The jury originally awarded the child's family $150 million, but the judge decided to significantly to reduce the amount based on other precedents. The automaker has been considering further legal options since the decision was announced in July. The boy's death happened in 2012 when he was riding in a Grand Cherokee. The vehicle was rear-ended, and the fuel tank burst, causing a fire. This is the same issue that led to a recall of millions of the SUVs and a recent agreement with the US government from FCA to pay to get them fixed. In the original ruling, the jury said that the automaker was 99 percent responsible for the fatality and didn't adequately warn owners. It asked the company to pay $120 million for wrongful death and $30 million for his pain and suffering. FCA countered that the Jeeps met the safety standards of the time they were made. FCA requested that the jury's award be reduced in May calling the amount "grossly excessive." If the family didn't agree to a lower amount, the company also threatened to seek a new trial. Among the arguments was that $30 million was too much for the child's one minute of suffering. The parents did accept the judge's adjusted figure, though.