News

KenStevens5150 via YouTube

A massive number of Ford Broncos have been spotted parked up outside of Ford’s Michigan Assembly Plant. The build-up of SUVs is directly tied to the global semiconductor shortage, Automotive News is reporting this week.Bronco fanatics may actually recall this parking lot, as it gained a bit of notoriety during last year’s hardtop-related delays. Back then it garnered the nickname Dirt Mountain, though Michigan’s winter weather has made it harder to see the large earth pile for which the lot is named. As such, some members of the various Bronco forums have begun referring to the area as Ice Mountain. Regardless of what you call it, recent videos uploaded to the Bronco6G forum confirm that Ford has once again packed the lot full of completed trucks.

Thankfully for the frustrated Bronco fans out there, one dealership owner was more willing to speak on the matter. According to Ford dealer council chairman Tim Hovik, who owns San Tan Ford in Gilbert, Arizona, the production issues are related to ongoing chip shortages. Hovik told Automotive News that these issues are not exclusive to Ford or the Bronco, but that certain semiconductor chips have become more difficult to acquire from suppliers. Without official confirmation from Ford, there is no way for us to be entirely certain about the situation at hand outside MAP. That said, the act of parking completed vehicles while waiting for chips isn’t new in the pandemic era.
This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

While the auto industry as a whole continues to struggle with production and supply chain constraints, the visuals of this parking lot are tough to see. That is especially true when you consider the markup prices that have arrived as a result. Road & Track has reached out to Ford for comment and will update this story if we hear back.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced this week it has opened an investigation into over 400,000 Teslas—all 2021 and 2022 model year Tesla Model 3 and Model Y electric vehicles—for problems with their automated emergency braking systems.This isn’t the first time Tesla has had to deal with NHTSA about its potentially faulty AEB technology. In October, Tesla recalled almost 12,000 of its EVs because an over-the-air update caused communication problems between two chips that help run the AEB systems.Other automakers, including Nissan and autonomous shuttle company EasyMile, have also had problems with their AEB systems.New technologies can lead to new problems, for which we sometimes have to invent new terminologies. In the automotive world, the growing number of cars with automated emergency brake capability has led to something called “phantom braking,” which is when the AEB system thinks it needs to brake in order to prevent a collision, but there’s actually nothing there to hit.

This week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it has received 354 complaints from Tesla drivers concerning these unexpected automatic braking incidents over the past nine months. NHTSA said that Tesla drivers have reported “that the rapid deceleration can occur without warning, at random, and often repeatedly in a single drive cycle.” The issue potentially affects around 416,000 vehicles, all 2021 and 2022 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y electric vehicles, and the rise in complaints broadly tracks Tesla’s shift away from multi-sensor perception systems that use both radar and cameras to the new Tesla Vision system that relies solely on cameras. Since May 2021, Tesla has not installed radar sensors in its Model 3 and Model Y cars built for the North American market. Tesla CEO Elon Musk still champions the camera-only system, tweeting last December that “Whereas radar has trouble seeing small pedestrians, they’re obvious to Tesla Vision.” NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation has opened a Preliminary Evaluation into the issue and said it is not aware of any crashes or injuries related to the issue.
This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This isn’t the first time that NHTSA has looked into Tesla’s phantom braking problem. Last October, NHTSA announced Tesla would recall some 2017–2021 Model S, Model 3, Model X, and 2020–2021 Model Y vehicles (a total of 11,728 units) because a “communication error may cause false forward-collision warning (FCW) or unexpected activation of the automatic emergency brake (AEB) system.”NHTSA said at the time that the problem was an over-the-air software update that introduced a communication problem between two onboard chips when the vehicle would come out of Sentry mode or Summon Standby mode. At these times, one of the chips could remain in a low-power “sleep” state, NHTSA said, with the effect that the video neural networks that operate on one of the chips then wouldn’t correctly communicate with the other chip and then “run less consistently than expected.” When this happened, an affected vehicle could incorrectly identify objects around it, and this happened enough times that Tesla drivers soon reported a noticeable increase in the number of problems with forward-collision warnings and AEB events. Tesla told NHTSA it resolved the issue with a follow-up OTA update. Tesla isn’t the only automaker facing questions over phantom braking problems. In 2020, autonomous shuttle operator EasyMile was forced to suspend operations when one of its vehicles injured a passenger in an abrupt stop. In 2019, NHTSA looked into phantom braking problems in 2017–2018 Nissan Rogue SUVs following driver complaints. NHTSA announced in late 2020 that it was working with 20 automakers on a voluntary basis to make low-speed AEB and forward-collision-warning systems standard on “almost all new passenger vehicles” by August 31, 2023.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

The ship that caught fire Wednesday with around 4000 vehicles on board is still ablaze and adrift in the Atlantic Ocean today.Firefighters are on their way to the ship, which might—repeat, might—be challenging to put out because of some electric vehicles on board. We have no idea yet what caused the fire.Whatever caused the blaze, the kinds of roll-on-roll-off (RORO) ferries that can transport thousands of cars at once are at high risk for total loss once a fire starts on board.The Felicity Ace, the cargo ship that is still on fire in the Atlantic Ocean, does have thousands of new vehicles from the Volkswagen Group on board, but the impact of any electric vehicles is not yet known.To recap, the car carrier was on the way from Europe to the U.S. with a load of new vehicles on board when it caught fire Wednesday near the Azores. All 22 crew members were rescued, and the ship was left adrift and burning. There were reports that the ship would be towed to the Azores, but the 650-foot-long ship is too big for the port of Horta there. The ship is likely to be towed back to Europe or to the Bahamas, Captain Joao Mendes Cabecas from Port of Horta told Reuters.
This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Firefighting crews and salvage teams are on their way to deal with the massive fire, which could be more difficult to get under control with EV batteries on board. There is no confirmation yet that this is the case, but it is likely that EVs were part of the cargo. Both Porsche and VW import some vehicles from Europe to the U.S., but as VW only imports the GTI, Golf R, and ID.4 from Europe, the automaker most likely to be affected is Porsche, which imports the Taycan from the plant in Zuffenhausen, Germany. A Porsche spokesperson told Car and Driver, “It is too early to speculate on the cause of the incident.”Lamborghini declined to give a comment to C/D, but a VW spokesperson told us that the U.S. arm doesn’t know much more about the situation on the ship other than what’s available in media reports. Bloomberg, which managed to get access to an internal email from Volkswagen AG’s U.S. operations, reported there were 3965 vehicles on board. Around 100 of the vehicles are apparently VW models destined for the U.S.Porsche spokesperson Luke Vandezande told Bloomberg that the automaker estimates it had around 1100 vehicles on the Felicity Ace, and 189 Bentleys have also been confirmed as being part of the cargo list.The software company Skytek issued a short report today that claims the estimated market value of the Felicity Ace is $24.5 million, while the total value of the 3965 vehicles could be over $500 million.Cargo vessel fires were the number three cause of shipping losses over the past decade, and there were 10 “total loss” cargo ship fires in 2020, according to Reinsurance News. While, overall, the shipping industry has improved its safety record in the past 10 years, roll-on-roll-off (RORO) ferries are at high risk for fire.”To facilitate carriage of automobiles the internal spaces are not divided into separate sections like other cargo ships,” said Rahul Khanna, global head of marine risk consulting at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, told Reinsurance News. “The lack of internal bulkheads can have an adverse impact on fire safety and a small fire on one vehicle or battery can grow out of control very quickly. Vehicles are not easily accessible once loading has been completed.”

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

The cool factor of this 1986 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16, currently up for auction on Bring a Trailer, cannot be denied.The car, built to satisfy the DTM touring-car homologation requirement, has a 167-hp 2.3-liter inline-four and a five-speed manual transmission.Bidding is up to $8100 so far on the 130,000-mile Mercedes, with the auction scheduled to end on Tuesday, February 22.Performance cars from the ’80s and ’90s are very hip these days, and while I am not immune to trends, I like to think that my fondness for sporty cars of this era was formed in my youth. Interestingly though, there are very few Mercedes from this era that I pine after. Sure, there are late-20th-century Mercs that I want, but the two at the top of the list from my youth are the Porsche-engineered and -built 500E and this car, the Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16. Mercedes manufactured it so that it could compete in the DTM championship, and homologation cars have a cool factor that can’t be replicated. This example is for sale now on the Bring a Trailer auction site—which, like Car and Driver, is part of Hearst Autos.

Bring a Trailer

When the 2.3-16 came out in the mid-’80s, it was unlike any other Mercedes sedan that preceded it. As its name suggests, it had a high-strung 2.3-liter engine fitted with 16 valves. Mind you, this was a time when four valves per cylinder was practically exotic. Mercedes leveraged the expertise of engine giant Cosworth to supply the DOHC head design for the M102 engine. It was crazy expensive at the time, costing more than double what a Merkur XR4Ti cost. But it got you class-leading performance in every metric, save fuel economy, according to our March 1986 road test.

This example is a U.S.-spec car, which means it has a 167-hp tune, whereas the European models have 185-hp engines. Not a big deal for me as this car is more about the experience. Plus, it isn’t perfect. The taillamps aren’t original, the rear parcel shelf is missing some trim, and the sunroof doesn’t work. It has an aftermarket Blaupunkt stereo that is meant to look old but can’t replicate the coolness of the Becker Grand Prix head unit that came from the factory.

Bring a Trailer

The videos posted by the seller indicate that this one appears to be mechanically sound with just enough wrong that it won’t set a record price. This is ideal for me as it would keep me busy searching for period-correct parts. And it isn’t so nice that I would be nervous or have regret driving it. The first thing I would do is replace all the rubber in the suspension—make it feel new even if it doesn’t quite look new. Whoever wins it will enjoy it, that much I know.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More