AD #2275 – Jeep Reveals New Commander, Another Tesla Autopilot Crash, Explorer Investigated Over Carbon Monoxide Leaks

January 24th, 2018 at 11:50am

Runtime: 8:52

0:31 Jeep Reveals New Commander
1:05 Land Rover Teases New Range Rover SE Coupe
1:22 Ford EcoSport Already on Sale in U.S.
2:32 Magneti Integrates Autonomous Sensors
3:25 Explorer Investigated Over Carbon Monoxide Leaks
3:51 Another Tesla Autopilot Crash
4:34 You Said It!

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

31 Comments to “AD #2275 – Jeep Reveals New Commander, Another Tesla Autopilot Crash, Explorer Investigated Over Carbon Monoxide Leaks”

  1. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I continue to be an Achates skeptic because, in spite of the hype, we have seen nothing except claims. I found a youtube video of an interview with someone representing Achates, and it turns out that the F-150 at the show does not drive, nor has its engine even run.

    (about 6:55 in the video)

    https://youtu.be/UxON-HIlz5E

    I’d think that after these years of hype, there would at least be a drivable vehicle, and the public might have seen running engines.

  2. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Tesla needs to rename “Autopilot.” It seems that some drivers expect too much from it.

  3. G.A.Branigan Says:

    I’m kinda stoked about the achates diesel. Can they license the tech to more than one oem?

  4. Lambo2015 Says:

    John No biggie but I think Ukendoit as you pronounced u ken douit. I think was intended to be You can do it.

  5. XA351GT Says:

    I stumbled across a Eco-Sport at my local Ford Dealer this past weekend. Stopped in to see what is new on a nice weather day. I at 1st thought it was a Escape. Front proportions are similar. It looks chunkier though.

    I was looking at the sticker on 2 Mustangs they had , one was a Eco-boost with a stick that got only 25 MPG and the other was loaded Eco-boost with a 10 speed auto. it only got 23 MPG. WTH ? The 305 HP 4.0 V6 a couple years ago got over 30 MPG. What gives? Also the stick was 26K and the auto was 41K. Too damn rich for my blood.

  6. G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ Kit: Yeah,’autopilot’ is a very misleading name for a system that doesn’t work very well. I wonder what excuse tesla will come up with on this latest crash…

  7. Lambo2015 Says:

    #2 That was my point weeks ago that this AV technology needs to be rolled out as an all or nothing version. Sure Lane departure and auto-braking is a great option but anything that gives drivers the idea that they can take their hands off the wheel and do something else when the car may need them to take back over is just asking for trouble. Drivers need to either pay attention or have fully AV car that can completely manage the full trip without assistance.

  8. GM Veteran Says:

    In a recent article, Achates said they are working with up to six OEMs and will have driveable prototypes for the press to evaluate in the near future.

    That Tesla hit a parked fire truck at 65 mph and no one was hurt? Pretty impressive safety architecture, very unimpressive Autopilot feature.

  9. Lex Says:

    Hi John,

    My rendering of what the refreshed Jeep Cherokee should look like is more in line with the New Jeep Commander you showed on today’s episode (AD No. 2275). The improvements to the rear storage “Boot” area and the addition of the 2.0 Litre Turbo engine should increase sells of the Cherokee. I am not too happy about the new rear composite hatch door or the aluminum hood on the 2019 Cherokee. How will these new body components holdup in frontal and rear crashes?

  10. Lambo2015 Says:

    The 2018 Escape get 23-30 MPG so 25-28 isn’t impressive as they look similar in size. Is the Ecosport much bigger?

  11. Drew Says:

    It’ll be a challengefor Magneti to keep all those sensors operational. Road debris, environmental dirt/ice build-up, and misalignment from park-by-feel ludites need to be evaluated.

  12. Lisk Says:

    Just curious as to how autopilot allowed the car to travel in the service lane where the fire truck was stationary? Could it be the driver was actually in control and put theirselves in the service lane to get around the slowed traffic and and ran into the fire truck out of surprise and is blaming autopilot? Seen this happen on numerous occasions on regular cars.

  13. Drew Says:

    @12 – I can envision Elon and other autonomous vehicle makers adding something akin to flight data recorders… that go beyond the present on-board recorders… adding GPS data and video recordings from the forward-looking camera.

  14. Marshall Says:

    So Tesla, the leader in building autonomous drive vehicles has another crash. Meanwhile GM is building their own autonomous vehicle with get this – no steering wheel or control pedals. Owners will have absolutely no way to take control of the vehicle if the need arises. KYAGB.

  15. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    The Ford Explorer “CO” issue will not go away. Social media will keep it in the thoughts of current owners and potential new customers. It will also cause a diminished value issue when its time to trade for a new vehicle. New car sales people will use this or any other proven or otherwise known fault to reduce the value of your trade.

  16. Barry Rector Says:

    John,
    I’ve been attending the NAIAS for many years and see its glamour in decline. There are fewer concept/futuristic displays. There are fewer luxury marks displays (re: the “special” auto show for high-end marks) that the general public can’t attend.
    Personally, I don’t care for all the lighting of the vehicles. With the bright lights and colors doesn’t allow for evaluating the cars true colors and styling.
    I could go on but I hope you get where I’m coming. I’ll still attending.

  17. G.A.Branigan Says:

    @ GM Veteran: Thanks for the info ;}>

  18. lambo2015 Says:

    #15 Frederick; The Explorer CO problem reminds me of the Explorer roll-over with Firestone tires debacle. How long will it take to figure this one out? Hopefully no one dies before they find the cause.

    For those that don’t remember The Explorer was prone to roll-over when it was launched in 1990 so Ford decided to lower it 1/2 inch in front 1 inch in the rear and lower the recommended tire pressure from 35 to 28. In 1996 Firestone tires from the Decatur Ill plant started to separate/fail and caused like 270 deaths and over 800 injuries just in the US. Seems like the investigation went of for years before Ford issued a recall in 2001 and replaced 13 million tires. Firestone replaced something like 23 Million.

  19. Ukendoit Says:

    Thanks, for mentioning me John and Lambo. My name is Ken and the handle or pen name I use in several places is intended to be the phrase of encouragement with my name inserted, so: You “Ken” do it! …But you can call me anything, as long as you don’t call me late for dinner.

    #5) I think the 305HP/30MPG was their goal for marketing and they reached it as 30 MPG highway (but not combined).

  20. Kit Gerhart Says:

    10 The EchoSport is smaller than Escape, only 158 inches long, about like an HR-V.

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Weren’t tbe earlier reports of CO in Explorers blamed on holes drilled for police equipment? Actually, I’m suprised that the engine of a new vehicle like that emits enough CO to affect people, even if a little exhaust gets in the cabin.

  22. John McElroy Says:

    #4. Lambo, you are right. I stand corrected!

  23. Kit Says:

    #5, 19 The Mustang 4 cyl turbo gets 21/32 city/highway with the automatic, and 21/31 with the manual, 25 combined EPA ratings for both.. Here are a couple other cars for comparison.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39648&id=39648&id=38815&id=39650

  24. Dwagner1239 Says:

    #9 LEX: Both my 2017 Dodge Journey and 2017 Chrysler Pacifica have aluminum hoods and fiberglass rear liftgates. The last generation Cherokee (XJ) had a fiberglass liftgate, so nothing new.

    At first, I was interested in that 2.0L Turbo 4, then I see that it will require premium fuel to deliver full power. Will stick with the standard 3.6 when I put in my 2019 Cherokee order. Regular 87 octane in SE Michigan is currently $2.539. Premium 91 octane is $3.139. Can’t see a 19% cost bump to be worth the higher torque figure.

    I expect that the Ford Ecosport is meant to compete with the Chevy Trax. The Buick Encore is the upscale equivalent.

    Curious why the Ford Expedition and the Lincoln Navigator were competing for the “truck” of the year at the NAIAS when they are the same vehicle except for sheet metal and luxury amenities. Rather sparse field to chose from I guess.

    Interesting that Jeep is bringing back the Commander name. Were a lot of them seen around this area when they were in production 2006 to 2009. I found a better picture: https://auto.ndtv.com/news/2018-jeep-grand-commander-suv-leaked-in-images-in-china-1801860.

  25. Adam White Says:

    Part of the rest of the story about the Ford Explorer / Firestone Wilderness tire issue isn’t as well known as the above mentioned- unless you happened to own a 1997 Explorer back then. Yes you received a new door tag for the higher tire pressure rating, and replacement tires, but if you owned the vehicle long enough and tried to keep the front tires from wearing out after multiple trips to the alignment shop you learned of Ford’s other big mistake they did in trying to prevent roll-over: The 97′s left the factory with a specified 2 degree negative camber on the front wheels! Try and correct to Zero degrees Camber and this cannot even be totally achieved with an aftermarket camber kit- the upper control arm bolt mounting holes have to be elongated to slots with a die grinder! You can still spot a few 97 Explorers on the road with the front tires kicked out at the bottom because of negative camber, which the engineers must have pictured good in turns but forgot about all the wear on inner tread- all day long on the highway!

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    24 I have two cars that “recomnend,” but don’t “require” premium fuel. In normal driving, they work fine, and as far as I can tell, get the same gas mileage on regular. If I were doing a track play day, autocross, etc. where I’d want full power, I would certainly use premium. I use premium in my 1989 Dodge Caravan turbo. I don’t drive it much, so don’t use much fuel in it, but also, I figure the engine controls weren’t as good 29 years ago, as now.

  27. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 My first car, a 1957 Chrysler, had negative camber after the front suspension “settled,” and or parts wore. It was not good for tire wear.

  28. Ukendoit Says:

    25, We still have my wife’s 97 Exploder so thanks for the info, Adam. I can’t speak to the first few years of it’s life, but since I’ve been maintaining it we no longer have Firestone tires and we always keep the tire pressure in a higher range (30-32PSI). I know the control arms, ball joints, maybe even sway bar links have been replaced and it has been aligned. I haven’t had any uneven wear on the tires, but now that you’ve informed me I will take another look at its setup!

  29. XA351GT Says:

    Kit @ #23 I can only report back what was on the actual sticker on the window of the cars. But it was definitely a combined 23 MPG on the Auto and 25 on the Manual. I guess my question is why have 10 gears if the car is still going to get crap Mileage? Why so much complexity for so little return. Hell 89 5.0 GT used to get a combined 20-22 MPG in real world driving with a 5sp manual.

  30. Kit Gerhart Says:

    XA, it seems that there is a “gears” race going on, but I agree. Beyond about 6 gears, there seem to be diminishing returns. My Corvette has an 8-speed automatic, and for normal driving, it has little advantage over the 6-speed it replaced. The 8-speed is a newer design, and probably shifts quicker, and is more responsive than the old one, making it better for “performance” driving.

  31. BobD Says:

    #3 (G.A.Branigan) on you question on licensing to multiple OEMs… In a former life I worked for a powertrain manufacture and we often acquired licenses to explore new technologies. Basically you can negotiate all types of agreements, from exclusive licenses, to exclusive licenses for a particular segment (e.g., heavy-duty truck use), or non-exclusive licenses. It all depends on how much you want to pay. Likewise, most licenses are paid in phases or so much per year. This allows a company to pay so much up front to explore the technology via simulation, pay more to develop proto-types to evaluate, and pay more to go into production. You often then pay a royalty fee per unit sold. When a company brags they have sold their license to X number of OEMs, that really does not mean much, as most of the OEMs are just wanting to see more details on the design and it never gets beyond that. Some OEMs will see enough promise to build hardware to test/evaluate. Often even when the technology proves out, the cost of production or durability issues may nix the idea compared to existing technology. I have been involved in numerous licensed technology projects and few have made it all the way to production. It is very hard to design a cost-competitive better mouse trap.