1974 Mercury Comet 302 Survivor on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Automakers tussle over owners of 'orphan' makes

When General Motors put down several of its brands in recent years, it also let loose thousands of brand-loyal customers who will eventually need another car.
R.L. Polk Associates estimates there are more than 18 million cars from 16 discontinued makes on the road today. Those "orphan owners" have sales-hungry competitors seeing dollar signs. GM is offering Saturn owners $1,000 cash toward a Chevy Cruze, Cadillac CTS or a GMC Acadia. Ford is giving its Mercury lease customers a chance to get out of their contracts with no early-termination penalty and offering to waive six remaining payments if they drive off in a Ford or Lincoln.
Edmunds.com research shows the efforts are paying off somewhat for GM, with 39 percent of Pontiac owners, 37 percent of Hummer owners and 31 percent of Saturn owners taking delivery of another GM-branded vehicle. But that leaves as much as 69 percent of owners going elsewhere. Ford, Honda and Toyota seem to be attracting many former GM owners.

Report: Lincoln getting all of Mercury's ad dollars

Now that the curtain has closed on Mercury, Ford Motor Company will redirect all of its marketing dollars for the oft-overlooked brand to the Blue Oval's luxury outpost, Lincoln. In speaking to Automotive News, the chairman of the Lincoln National Dealer Council, Bob Tasca, Jr., said, "You'll see a lot stronger presence in the advertising of Lincoln in 2011."
Lincoln spokesperson Christian Bokich reminded AN that the automaker is "preparing the way for seven new or significantly refreshed vehicles" that will be launched over the next four years, and the largest ad blitz in 2011 will focus on the refreshed MKX crossover, as well as the MKZ sedan and its hybrid counterpart. Following that, Lincoln has plans to launch a completely overhauled version of its Navigator SUV, an all-new C-segment vehicle and the overhauled 2013 MKZ, which Tasca says will be "strikingly different from its Ford Fusion sibling."
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req. | Image: John Neff/Autoblog/AOL]Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"