1929 Ford Model A Chop Top Roadster Fiberglass Body 1932 Grill Shell And Valance on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford tells Congress it collects and protects some driver data

Last month Ford's Jim Farley made waves at the CES when it was reported he told show attendees, "We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing. By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone." Farley and Ford later partially retracted and clarified that statement.
Spurred by a desire for further transparency on data collection policies, Ford representatives answered questions from Congress, specifically Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), about driver privacy.
The Detroit News reports that Ford told Congress it does collect some vehicle location data in an effort to "troubleshoot and improve our products" on behalf of the driver. Ford went on to say that it only collects limited data after receiving permission from owners.

Cadillac ELR, Nissan Resonance and Ford Atlas win Eyes on Design awards

This year's annual Eyes on Design awards were presented at the end of press days for the Detroit Auto Show on Tuesday. Given out for the best production and concept car designs that debuted at the show, and voted on by an esteemed panel of actual car designers, this year's award for best production vehicle design went to the 2014 Cadillac ELR. The 2014 Chevrolet Corvette, which was the show favorite among Autoblog editors, apparently did not impress the Eyes on Design judges enough with its all-new vent-festooned design.
The award for best concept design was actually split as a tie among the Nissan Resonance and Ford Atlas concepts. Last year's winners were the 2013 Ford Fusion and the Lexus LF-LC concept.
The Eyes on Design organization also presented a new honor this year called the Catalyst Award to Bob Lutz, former Vice Chairman of General Motors. Lutz is reported to have given a defense of design in his acceptance speech, arguing that advancements in quality across the industry as a whole have made good design a key differentiator for buyers.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.