Ford Model A Closed Cab Pickup on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: Auto execs face life in prison for recall delays under proposed legislation

The stiff punishments are part of broader transportation legislation, but clearly McCaskill has automakers in her sights.
Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill threw down the gauntlet this week, proposing a bill that could send auto executives to prison for life if they were found to have delayed a recall. She also wants to eliminate the limit for fines for auto safety violations, which are currently capped at $35 million.

Ford recalls Explorer and Lincoln MKC for fire hazard

The Basics: Ford will recall 5,536 examples of the 2016 Explorer and 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC. The Explorers have build dates between October 20, 2014, and January 28, 2016, at the Chicago Assembly Plant. The MKCs are from between November 25, 2013, and January 25, 2016, at the Louisville Assembly Plant. In total, there are 3,129 total affected examples of the 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 examples of the 2016 Ford Explorer. Of these, 1,543 are in the US and 3,993 are in Canada. The Problem: The combination of the engine block design and the block heater in these vehicles can cause the part to overheat when plugged in. Injuries/Deaths: None reported, but there are two cases of underhood fires in Canada. If you own one: Ford will begin notifying owners during the week of May 16, company spokesperson John Cangany tells Autoblog. Related Video: Ford issues safety recall for certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to replace engine block heaters Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 5,500 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to remove the heaters and replace them with an updated design. The engine block design, coupled with the particular block heater installed in these vehicles, causes the unit to be susceptible to overheating when the vehicle is parked and the block heater is plugged in –increasing the risk of an underhood fire. Ford is aware of two reports of underhood fires in Canada, but is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this issue. Affected vehicles include certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC vehicles built at Louisville Assembly Plant, Nov. 25, 2013 through Jan. 25, 2016 and certain 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 20, 2014 through Jan. 28, 2016. There are 5,536 vehicles affected by the issue, including 3,129 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles, with 1,543 of the affected vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 3,993 in Canada. Dealers will remove and replace the engine block heater with an updated design and, if needed, replace the cord at no cost to the customer.

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.