Lincoln MKE (.com)?

This is interesting.

http://www.lincolnmke.com points to the Lincoln web site.

So does http://www.lincolnmkl.com

So what is an MKE and MKL?

Should Ford Kill Mercury?

Bloomberg reports via unnamed sources that Ford's leadership is planning on killing Mercury in about four years.

Reasons they should: It's a small brand which probably doesn't make much money; it's a damaged brand which doesn't seem to stand for much.  Many of the major automakers only have a couple of U.S. brands, such as Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura, VW/Audi, BMW/Mini, Mercedes/Smart.  

Reasons they shouldn't: Mercury sold 92,000+ cars last year.  That's more than Saab, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Smart, Infiniti, Porsche, Mini, Volvo, Audi, and Lincoln brands.  Many Lincoln dealers need the product to stay afloat, unless Lincoln is going to break out somehow into a larger volume brand. Oh, and Mercury has Jill Wagner.

What's In HR5381, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010

The House committee on energy and commerce has voted to release HR 5381, the Motor Vehicle Safey Act of 2010, to the full house for a vote.

So what is in it?  Here is a quick synopsis.  You can read it for yourself here.  My comments in italics.

Section 101: The NHTSA will create a Center for Vehicle Electronics and Emerging Technologies to focus attention on electronics.  The Secretary Of Transportation will set up an honors recruitment program which will make an effort to recruit from the top 10% of engineering students, particularly among minority institutions, and to provide a stipend for students who participate.  (What is this doing in an auto safety bill?  No wonder people are angry at congress!)

Section 102: The NHTSA has one year to design a safety standard for a bake-throttle over-ride system.  The system may be user defeatible, and may allow two-pedal driving under some conditions. (I think this is reasonable, as long as NHTSA has flexibility in how they do this)

Section 103: The NHTSA will update FMVSS 124 within two years with a rule that requires at least one redundant control to be present in an accelerator control system.  (This is not necessary.  All electronic throttle control systems that I am aware of have multiple redundant sensors and controls.)

Section 104: The NHTSA will consider a rule, within 18 months, to regulate the design of pedal spacing and clearance.  If NHTSA decides that the rule is appropriate, it will be in force within 4 years.  

Section 105: The NHTSA will consider a rule, within 2 years, to require minimum performance standards for electronic control systems.  If NHTSA decides that the rule is appropriate, it will be in force within 4 years.  (This is a difficult task.  Will NHTSA require certain levels of EMC testing, for example?  Lots of work for engineers going forward...)

Section 106: The NHTSA will, within 2 years, issue a rule to standardize the operation of push-button start systems.  (I have no problem with this, as long as there is flexibility in the rules to allow for future technologies)

Section 107: The NHTSA will, 1 year, issue a revision to FMVSS 102 to make automatic transmission gear selectors easier to use, and to make neutral obvious.  (This will be an intrusive regulation, but I don't really object, if it makes cars easier to use.  It may however force everyone to have similar shifter styling.)

Section 108: Event Data Recorders will be required starting in 2015 model year.  EDRs will store at least 10s of data, and will have a standard interface.  EDR information will be readable with commercial equipment.  EDR data is the property of the vehicle owner or lessee, and cannot be retrieved without his consent other than by a court order.  Government agencies can get the data if personal information has been scrubbed, for study purposes.  EDRs will be tamper resistant.  

Section 201: NHTSA early warning data from defect investigations will be made publicly availible.

Section 202: NHTSA's vehicle safety database will be made more accessible to the public.

Section 203: NHTSA will require automakers to put a sticker in each vehicle which informs the owner how to submit a vehicle safety defect complaint to NHTSA.  (This is lame.  Why put it on each car? Don't we have enough nanny stickers everywhere?  Why not put it in the owner's manual, where the warranty coverages and other related information go?)

Section 204: NHTSA will set up a hotline for dealership personnel to report potential defects.  (Can't mechanics use the existing system?)

Section 205: Automaker executives will be required to sign submissions to NHTSA, certifying that they have reviewed the reported information.  Anyone found to make a false report will be fined up to $5,000 per day. (Ouch)

Section 206: Allows people who have been rejected in claiming a defect to appeal the rejection to their court of appeals.

Section 207: If NHTSA can't make a deadline, they must explain why and also submit a new deadline.

Section 208: Sets up some reports NHTSA must make to congress regarding defect and crash investigations.

Section 301: There will be a $9 per car tax to help fund the NHTSA.  It will be indexed to inflation.  (In a 12 million car market, that will be a nice sum of $108,000,000.  Our cars will all get $9 more expensive)

Section 401: The maximum fine per vehicle that NHTSA will be able to levy for rule violations increases from $5,000 to $25,000.  The total cap increases from $15,000,000 to $200,000,000.

Section 402: If NHTSA determines that a defect is an "imminent hazard", an imminent hazard order will be issued within 10 days.  (This isn't a recall, just a quick notification to the public, if I understand it correctly.)

IBM Patent: Traffic Signal Engine Shutdown

IBM has filed a patent application for a smart traffic signal communication system, where a traffic signal would communicate with the queued cars, telling them to shut down their engines, and scheduling when to restart their engines, based on where in the queue each car is.    From Slashdot.

This is not a bad idea, but it may be overly complicated and expensive.  Automakers and suppliers, including my own employer, are actively working on engine start-stop systems which will prevent long engine idling by shutting down the engine if the vehicle comes to a standstill for more than a few seconds.  The engine is then restarted when the driver lifts off of the brake pedal.   It sounds like the IBM proposed system would save a few seconds of idle time per car, and perhaps schedule a smoother restart, but at the cost of additional electronics at each intersection, and in each vehicle.  

There is also a question about consumer acceptance of the traffic signal system being able to shut down your car.  

IIHS: NEVs Aren't Safe (On Public Roads)

Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) are not safe enough for public roads.  That's because they don't have to meet Federal automobile crash standards, and are very light.  In any meeting between an NEV and a real car, the occupants of the NEV have a good chance of being squashed.

IIHS demonstrates this quite graphically, here.

Anyone driving an NEV on public roads is only a little better off than riding a scooter.

Buick Regal Impressions

I was at the Birmingham art fair this weekend, where Buick had set up a small display with two 2011 Regals.

The Regal is a sharp looking car, with taught lines and a hint of curve. I thought they looked like a mix if Mazda and BMW.

Thankfully, no stupid faux portholes.

Inside the car I sat in was decidedly un-Buick with nice materials, tight seams, and no fake wood in sight.

My only complaints: my right leg was rubbing up against the center console (but I wasn't in a real driving position) and the center stack seemed to have about 50% more butons than it ought to. Buick should hide more of that stuff behind a touch screen. Maybe there is one and I was just sitting in the cheaper variant.

If the Regal drives as sharp as it looks and feels, then I think Buick will do all right.

Hacking Cars? Not So Fast

In a widely publicized paper, here, a pair of research teams were able to "hack" cars, to demonstrate that modern cars are not sufficiently secure.

Don't worry, you're not in danger, yet.

The key to hacking a car is that the vehicle communications bus, typically a mix of high and low speed CAN bus, is not encrypted.  By connecting to the OBD-II port with the right tools (such as a laptop with a CAN communications interface device), a determined hacker could monkey with key signals.  To do so, he would have to either reverse engineer or obtain from other sources the CAN messaging protocol.  Then, by reading in, modifying, and rebroadcasting key messages, he could indeed do bad things, like shut down the car.  For example, a hacker could broadcast an erroneous vehicle speed on the bus, causing the speedometer to display the wrong speed, and other systems to think the car is moving (or not) at a different speed than it actually is.  

However, the only practical way to do this is to attach a foreign device to the cars CAN bus.  So your car would have to be physically compromised, either by having the wiring modified, or by having some sort of dongle installed on the OBD-II port.  The ECUs that form the vehicle CAN network are not typically easy to reflash with unauthorized firmware, so "hijacking" an ECU or installing a car virus is not really feasible.  The ECUs I have worked with all have memory checksum functions, and VIN compare software, to verify that the ECU has valid software and is in the correct vehicle.  According to the research paper, the team was able to compromise a telematics module and run malicious code on it.

The paper does point out some holes in vehicle bus security, and there are some things which can be done in the shorter term to mitigate such a threat.  ECUs should have robust challenge/response sequences before accepting diagnostic and test commands, for example.  They should also have robust checks against invalid software, so that it is difficult or impossible for a hacker to flash a module with homegrown software.