1977 Ford F-100 Ranger Cab & Chassis 2-door 5.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: Hackers demonstrate auto industry's vulnerability

There's always been a certain risk associated with driving, and this week cyber security came into focus as the latest danger zone when researchers demonstrated how easily they could hack into a 2014 Jeep Cherokee from across the country. The incident raised concerns over the vulnerability of today's cars, many of which double as smartphones and hot spots. During the now-infamous experiment, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller infiltrated the Jeep's cellular connection and were able to control the infotainment system, brakes, and other functions. The hackers told the Jeep's maker, FCA US, of their findings last year, the company devised a software fix. Though Valesek and Miller hacked a Cherokee (like the one shown above), several FCA products, including recent versions of the Ram, Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, and Viper were also affected, illustrating potentially wide exposure that could reverberate across the sector. "For the auto industry, this is a very important event and shows that cyber-security protection is needed even sooner than previously planned," Egil Juliussen, senior analyst and research director for IHS Automotive, wrote in a research note. "Five years ago, the auto industry did not consider cyber security as a near-term problem. This view has changed." Hours after the Cherokee hacking incident was publicized on Tuesday, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) introduced legislation to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Trade Commission to establish national standards for automotive cyber security. The bill also would require vehicles to have a cyber-rating system to alert consumers how well their cars' privacy and security are defended. "Drivers shouldn't have to choose between being connected and being protected," Markey said in a statement. "We need clear rules of the road that protect cars from hackers and American families from data trackers." Though FCA and its Jeep Cherokee were in the spotlight this time, they were just the latest to showcase how automotive technology has advanced faster than safety and regulatory measures. IHS forecasts 82.5 million cars will be connected to the internet by 2022, which is more than three times today's level. "Cyber-security will become a major challenge for the auto industry and solutions are long overdue," Juliussen said.

Ford recalls select Explorer, E-Series vans

Just a few days ago we brought you news that Ford had issued a recall on 28,000 units of the Edge crossover for problems related to the fuel line. But now the Blue Oval has issued recall notices on two more of its larger vehicles.
The first relates to the Explorer, 395 examples of which from the 2011 and 2012 model years were found to have problems with their steering systems if they underwent service after September 1, 2013. An apparent software glitch could lock the steering gear, preventing the driver from steering the vehicle and thereby increasing the risk of a crash. As a result, Ford dealers are being instructed to check their records to identify the problematic vehicles and bring them in to have the steering gear replaced. Details of the recall can be found in the PDF linked here.
The second problem revolves around E-Series vans that may develop bubbles in their windshields under hot temperatures. The decrease in visibility through the problematic windshield could - you guessed it - "increase the risk of a crash." As a result, Ford is calling in 4,532 units of the E-150, E-250, E-350 and E-450 vans built in the relatively short window between May 12 and May 26, 2011. Details of this recall can be found in the notice below from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

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.