1971 Lincoln Continental Base 7.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Even Ford executives had issues with MyFord Touch

MyFord Touch is one of the auto industry's more controversial features. The media broadly panned the infotainment system developed with Microsoft for its slow responses and reliance on voice commands to navigate its deep menus. Oh, and Ford executives weren't big fans, either. Newly revealed court documents in a California class-action lawsuit demonstrate the level of venom Ford employees, both big and small, reserved for the Blue Oval's infotainment system. An error caused Bill Ford's navigation system to crash, leaving the family scion stuck on the side of the road in an unfamiliar area. The documents, unearthed by Forbes, detail current CEO Mark Fields' aggravations with MFT, too. A mechanic emailed an image of a cracked infotainment screen on an Edge to one of Ford's top Sync engineers, Kenneth Williams, suggesting "Mark Fields may have been a little aggravated with the system." But Ford and Fields' issues are nothing compared to the woes of the engineers that had to work on MFT. In a collection of emails obtained by Forbes, one engineer called the system "a polished turd," while another simply said, "These poor customers." And after one engineer suggested using a photo of Ford's Oakville Assembly Plant – home of the Edge, Flex, Lincoln MKX, and MKT production – as a background for the system, one of his coworkers said in an email that someone should instead Photoshop the image to read "abandon hope all ye who enter here," the Detroit News reports. Another summed up the problem, saying: "Ford's quality reputation is completely on the line ... another model year with the same crap is not acceptable." MyFord Touch almost single-handedly torpedoed Ford's reputation in widely reported quality metrics, including JD Power and Consumer Reports. Ford responded with a refreshed Sync3, a wildly improved rethink of its infotainment system that is far more responsive and easier to live with every day. Related Video: News Source: Forbes, The Detroit NewsImage Credit: Ford Government/Legal Ford Lincoln Technology Mark Fields sync 3

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Dealers mobilize to protect their margins from automaker subscription services

Six individual auto brands — Lincoln, Cadillac, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo — have established or are trialing a vehicle subscription service in the U.S. Three third-party companies — Flexdrive, Clutch and Carma — run brand-agnostic subscription services. And three automakers — Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and General Motors — have also launched short-term rental services. Dealers, afraid of how these trends might affect their margins, are building political and lawmaking campaigns to protect their revenue streams. So far, three states are investigating automaker subscriptions, and Indiana has banned any such service until next year. It's certain that those three states are the first fronts in a long political and legal battle. Powerful dealer franchise laws mandate the existence of dealers and restrict how automakers are allowed to interact with customers to sell a vehicle. On top of that, Bob Reisner, CEO of Nassau Business Funding & Services, said, "Dealers and their associations are among the strongest political operators in many states. They as a group are difficult for state politicians to vote against." In California earlier this year, the state Assembly debated a bill with wide-ranging provisions to protect against what the California New Car Dealers Association called "inappropriate treatment of dealers by manufacturers." One of those provisions stipulated that subscription services need to go through dealers, but that item got stripped out when dealers and manufacturers agreed to discuss the matter further. In Indiana, Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a moratorium on all subscription programs by dealers or manufacturers until May 1, 2019, to give legislators more time to investigate. Dealers in New Jersey have taken their campaign to the state capitol, asking that the cars in subscription programs get a different classification for registration purposes. Automakers run the current subscription services and own the vehicles. Sign-ups and financial transactions happen online or through apps, leaving dealers to do little more than act as fulfillment centers to various degrees, with little legal recourse as to compensation amounts when they're called on to deliver or service a car. That's a bad base to build on for business owners who've sunk millions of dollars into their operations.