Strong Motor Just Confirmed Trade For Wens, Runs Fine Picking Up New Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dodge Dart falls short of Consumer Reports Recommended, Caddy XTS and Lincoln MKS, too

The Dodge Dart, Cadillac XTS and Lincoln MKS all failed to earn a "Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports. When it came to the compact Dart, the organization's testers thought the vehicle offered a quiet cabin, solid-feeling chassis and nimble suspension, but the new model ultimately fell short of the coveted rating due to powertrain issues. The institute's reviewers found the base 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine to be underpowered and noted "drivability issues" when the available turbocharged 1.4-liter four was paired with the optional dual-clutch transmission (some of our editors disliked it paired with the six-speed manual). CR also dinged the latter powerplant for sounding "raspy." For what it's worth, we think the forced-induction engine offers an excellent and playful exhaust note, but that's just us.
As for the XTS, CR lauded the car for its luxurious cabin, but the vehicle's experience was dulled by its finicky CUE infotainment interface. Overall, the big Cadillac scored much higher than its cross-town rival from Lincoln. While testers found the American luxury sedan to offer a quiet ride and quality fit and finish, they felt the MKS delivered a "cramped driving position, ungainly handling, uncomposed ride, and limited visibility." Ouch. At the end of the day, both cars fell short of rivals from Japan, Germany and Korea. Check out the full press release below with more details, along with CR's musings on the Chevrolet Spark and Lexus ES.

Is Lincoln working on a Continental concept?

The Lincoln Continental wasn't included in our post on the list of trademarks we'd like to see turned into production vehicles – the only Lincoln mention was our idea of transferring its Aviator name to a special edition Ford Mustang. But, like you, the idea of a resurrected Continental is always with us, especially when we read articles about the brand's efforts to redefine American luxury. Ford applied for the Continental trademark in 1953 and renewed in 2005, and it appears they might have something to show for it soon. A web snooper found a development site at the Lincoln domain that introduces us to the "elegantly styled and boldly distinctive Lincoln Continental Concept." There are no images, but we've combined all the text into a single image, above, and the hints we get in three blurb texts inform us that "It represents who we are as a carmaker," that it's an "envisioning of what's to come," that "No question went unanswered" and "No answer went unchallenged," and that it "is everything we know about cars, and everything we understand about people." We also found the tagline "Follow us forward," which doesn't appear on any published Lincoln site page at the moment, and the public is invited to get involved (eventually) by tweeting Continental stories and photos. Could this be the next step in the turgid drama Lincoln Rising? We look forward to finding out. Related Video:

Ford faces class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles without brake override systems

A total of 20 Ford customers are suing the automaker in a class-action lawsuit for selling vehicles "vulnerable to unintended acceleration." According to Reuters, the suit names 30 models built between 2002 and 2010 with electronic throttle control systems but without a brake override system. Those include the 2004-2012 F-Series pickups and the 2005-2009 Lincoln Town Car. Adam Levitt, a partner with the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer says the plaintiffs in the case want "to be compensated for their economic losses by having overpaid for cars that contained defects." Levitt contends that the plaintiffs would not have bought their vehicles or paid less for them had they known there was no brake override system in place.
Ford began installing brake override systems in its vehicles beginning in 2010. In response to the lawsuit, Ford has pointed to research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that indicated that unintended acceleration is mostly caused by driver error, saying in a statement that, "NHTSA's work is far more scientific and trustworthy than work done by personal injury lawyers and their paid experts."
Belville et al v. Ford Motor Co. will be heard in US District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia.