2004 Toyota Tacoma Prerunner V6 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Scion's would-be savior C-HR spied before its Toyota rebadging

Scion is dead, but one of its future products, the C-HR concept, is still in development for launch as a Toyota. Toyota does a thorough job of hiding the C-HR's rakish shape on these test cars, but we can spot the concept's design cues. For example, the pointed nose and narrow headlights are present, and the giant box on the roof can't hide the downward arch for the coupe-like rear. The back doors on these examples look larger than before, which suggests a switch to a traditional five-door body rather than the hidden rear openings on the concept. The change would offer easier access to the backseat and make the C-HR a better competitor in the segment against vehicles like the Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-3, and Jeep Renegade. The C-HR debuted as a boldly styled three-door crossover at the 2014 Paris Motor Show. Toyota later restyled the CUV with a more angular shape and extra doors. We most recently saw the compact crossover with Scion branding at the 2015 Los Angeles Auto Show. Rumors suggest the production model's debut at the Geneva Motor Show in March, and it could arrive at dealers in the latter half of 2016. The powertrain lineup likely consists of a four-cylinder engine with a CVT and possibly a hybrid version, too. You'll also get to see the C-HR on the track because Toyota will race the crossover in the 2016 Nurburgring 24 Hours. Related Video:

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.

Legal approach in $1.2 billion Toyota settlement could impact handling of GM recall cases

In the past, if an automaker did something wrong, they were usually prosecuted by the US government through something called the TREAD Act. Short for Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act, it basically requires automakers to report recalls in other countries, along with any and all serious injuries or deaths, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Failing to report or attempting to conceal anything when there's been a death or serious injury constitutes a criminal liability. The idea is that this setup puts the onus on manufacturers to keep NHTSA apprised of safety related issues before they become a problem in the US, thereby allowing the regulator to better protect consumers.
In theory, it sounds like a relatively airtight set of rules for dealing with misbehaving automakers. That didn't stop the US Department of Justice from ignoring TREAD in its prosecution of Toyota's handling of the unintended acceleration recall, though. The result of this new approach, which charged Toyota with wire fraud, was a $1.2 billion settlement. Now, the wire-fraud approach could be used for the expected case between the US government and General Motors, based on the statements of Attorney General Eric Holder, who specifically mentioned "similarly situated companies" when discussing Toyota.