2014 Toyota Tundra Sr5 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai tops Toyota in annual CarMD Vehicle Health Index

CarMD has released its third annual Vehicle Health Index, which for the 2013 tracked the frequency and cost of repairs for "check engine" problems of 119-million vehicles built between the 2003 and 2013 model years. For the first two years of the index, Toyota ranked at the top of the list, but this year's results see Hyundai moved to number one, pushing Toyota down a spot.
The Korean automaker's rise to the top has been "fueled by its low repair frequency," according to CarMD. Toyota is second to Hyundai in lowest repair frequency, but Toyotas also have the highest average cost of repair. (Interestingly, General Motors vehicles have the lowest average.) Both Toyota's and Hyundai's manufacturer "health" ratings suffered this year, but Toyota took a bigger hit, which also is what helped Hyundai achieve the top ranking.
While Hyundai is the top manufacturer in the index, the 2012 Toyota Camry is the top vehicle. The best-ranking Hyundai was the 2010 Elantra (behind three Nissan models and four Toyotas), which took the number eight spot. Hyundai has six other vehicles in the top 100.

Subaru Viziv 2 presages Tribeca replacement with diesel hybrid tech

Subaru is in the middle of a new product bonanza. It has recent replacements for the Impreza and Forester at dealers, and soon we're getting the WRX, Legacy and if rumors are right the new Outback as well. Now, there are rumblings that there could be two more models from the Japanese brand on the way with styling inspired by the Viziv 2 concept from the Geneva Motor Show.
According to a company insider speaking with Motor Trend, the crossover concept shows the way for the brand's future design language. The shape would be used on a smaller CUV that is still being kept quite secret, and a second, larger one that would replace the recently axed Tribeca. The bigger model is the first priority and is planned as a new technology showcase.
It's rumored to use a turbodiesel, four-cylinder boxer engine that would be boosted with one electric motor on the front axle and two at the rear, with a plug-in hybrid system sourced from Toyota. It should provide a great mix of torque and fuel economy. A smaller flat-six engine would be a second powertrain option. Though the Viziv 2 concept only seats four, the production version would probably offer three rows.

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.