2008 Ford F250 King Ranch Crew V10 4x4 Leather 20's 62k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: Toyota, Mazda team up to 'make cars better'

Toyota and Mazda are teaming for a noble purpose: to "make cars better." That's how the two Japanese automakers termed their partnership, which was announced this week. So what does this actually mean? The companies said they will set up a joint committee to look for areas of cooperation and named safety and the environment as issues they plan to tackle. From a product perspective, it's believed that Toyota is interested in Mazda's Skyactive engine portfolio. In turn, Mazda has its eye on Toyota's fuel-cell and plug-in hybrid technology. While more specifics were not confirmed, the companies said the "agreement will go beyond the traditional framework of cooperation," and it has the potential to be a long-range partnership. "The main purpose of this initiative is to enhance the appeal of our cars," Toyota president Akio Toyoda said at the announcement. Previously, Mazda has licensed Toyota's hybrid tech and assembled compact cars for Toyota in Mexico. Akio Toyoda said these projects "triggered" the automakers to explore further collaboration. Dave Sullivan, product analysis manager for AutoPacific, said the tie-up echoes Daimler's wide-ranging work with the Renault-Nissan alliance. "This could be a well-groomed match due to each having very unique skill sets," he said. OTHER NEWS & NOTES Volvo selects South Carolina for US factory Volvo confirmed this week that it will build its first US factory in South Carolina, with construction set to begin this fall. The company first revealed plans in March, though it didn't announce a site. The plant will have initial annual production of 100,000 units, though the vehicle or vehicles to be assembled were not specified. The factory, located near Charleston, will open in 2018 and ultimately employ 4,000 people. The facility will help Volvo continue its growth strategy, which includes strengthening its presence in the US market, where it wants to sell more than 100,000 cars per year. "Building a plant in the US is a reflection of Volvo Cars' commitment to the US and the key role the US plays in our growth objectives," Lex Kerssemakers, senior vice president, Americas, said in a statement. Ford GT spied on the road The 2017 Ford GT was spotted testing around the Blue Oval's headquarters in Dearborn, MI, this week. The raw body panels were exposed, and they lacked paint or camouflage. It's the first time the GT has been captured on the street after a spring of auto show reveals.

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.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.