As we recently reported, rumors have been swirling regarding Henrik Fisker's involvement with Tesla Motors and its upcoming electric sedan prototype known as the WhiteStar. As is often the case, there's apparently some truth to the scuttlebutt, as Tesla has filed a lawsuit claiming that Fisker Automotive is using stolen design ideas from Tesla sourced when Fisker Coachbuild was employed by the young EV automaker for the styling of its sedan.
According to Tesla chairman Elon Musk, "We could not use the Fisker styling. The styling was substandard compared to what he unveiled for his product. He gave us an inferior work product, and it's obvious why." In the process of working for Tesla, the lawsuit contends that Henrik Fisker and a few of his associates stole design ideas and confidential information related to the design of hybrid and electric cars. Fisker has since announced his upcoming Karma hybrid-electric sedan. Tesla seeks to have Fisker Automotive stop using any design ideas garnered from its relationship with Tesla, and any money paid to Fisker Coachbuild returned along with other unspecified damages.
Any celebration over having passed a new national energy bill with requirements to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020 was instantly tempered when the EPA denied the right of California and 16 other states to set their own emissions standards. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately vowed to fight back and sue the EPA over its decision.
It does seem a little odd that after opposing any kind of raise in CAFE standards, the auto industry suddenly got in line and unanimously offered its support for the version of the bill that was passed, especially after the EPA made its decision that seems to favor the interests of the auto industry over protecting the environment.
The situation seems odd enough that Congress has decided to get involved. The House Oversight Committee yesterday requested any and all internal and external communication from the EPA involving the decision it made to deny states the right to set their own emissions standards. The decision itself came down to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who some report ignored the unanimous recommendation of his own advisors in turning down California's request.
Back in June, we brought you news that Toyota was in the process of suing a pornography firm for copyright infringement. Apparently the Japanese automaker didn't appreciate that adult film star Lexus Cash was using its luxury division's handle as her stage name and for her website. Evidently unwilling to stop its litigation campaign, Toyota is now turning its lawyers loose on a gay porn actor who also uses the name Lexus.
According to latest reports, the Japanese automaker's lawyers in DC sent a cease-and-desist letter to EBoys Studios in Switzerland. The EBoys honcho insists that his performer chose the name because of its association with Greek mythology, and not with the automotive brand, and that the company will not cave to the carmaker's demands to recall the two flicks it has produced with the actor using that name.
Ford has not been having much luck with the 6.4-liter diesel engines for its Super Duty trucks of late. In the latest twist of a saga that began in January, Navistar, the company that makes those engines, had added additional charges to its $2 billion counter-suit against Ford.
Navistar has been the exclusive maker of Ford's Super Duty diesel truck engines since 1979. In January of this year, Ford sued Navistar over the price of the engine and excessive warranty claims. In February, Navistar halted shipments of the just launched 6.4-liter engines, saying Ford had stopped paying for them. Ford got a court order to compel Navistar to ship the engines (which Ford paid for) -- then Ford had to recall more than 8,000 trucks because customers were reporting tailpipe fires. Navistar has now filed a counterclaim that seeks more than $2 billion in damages, and alleges that Ford is planning to develop its own diesel engines prior to 2012. There is no indication as to which party, Ford or Navistar, has a better case. For now, though, while the engine issues can't be good for Navistar, it is far more damaging for Ford to have to deal with these kinds of problems with its newly-launched bread-and-butter vehicle.
There's still fallout landing from the Firestone-tire-crashing-Explorer episode. Maryland-based Quality Control Systems Corporation has sued NHTSA in an attempt to gain access to any reports Ford made to the agency regarding injuries and deaths from tire-related incidents. This latest action, under the Freedom Of Information Act, has been brought on by NHTSA's refusal to share any data it's collected about Explorer crashes.
NHTSA has been waffling about the level of detail it will release. A federal judge had ordered the agency to revamp a proposed rule allowing a high level of secrecy. The order was appealed by the Rubber Manufacturers Association, we're assuming in the interest of self preservation, and NHTSA is sitting on its hands until that appeal is resolved. If something was amiss with the tires, recommended inflation pressure, or just plain bad driving, the public deserves transparency. NHTSA contends that deciding what level of information to release on a case-by-case basis would be overwhelming – as well as possibly revealing sensitive corporate information. A blanket policy favoring informing the public, rather than protecting companies that make faulty products would be a step in the right direction. Instead, we're going to still be in the dark while time is wasted clogging up the legal system and paying lawyers to duke it out. Now, that's what we call progress.
Pardon us if we're very careful how we present this post. You see, the last time we posted on the situation surrounding allegations of impropriety being levied against Barrett-Jackson Auctions, we got nailed with a comment by Steve Davis, President of Barrett-Jackson. The comment chastised us for reporting on a post by Sam Barer of Four Wheel Drift concerning these allegations that has since been retracted.
Regardless, we learned from that experience that Barrett-Jackson is serious about protecting its reputation, and as such filed suit yesterday against one of its consignors from its recent Scottsdale event. According to the press release from Barrett-Jackson that surfaced today, the consignor was unhappy with the $300,000 sale price of his vehicle and placed chains and locks on the car after the auction. The release then says the man harnessed the power of the interweb to defame Barrett-Jackson by claiming the sale of his car was void due to "auction irregularities". BJ also claims that the "ongoing internet smear campaign", in which it appears we've been accused of participating, stems from this particular consignor.
So... that's all we're gonna say about this particular topic, because we don't want to be sued, either. Feel free to say what you want in the comments, though.
Check out the full press release from Barrett-Jackson after the jump.
Honda has decided to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges its odometers were racking up miles too fast. The automaker says odometers on some 6 million Hondas affected by the suit were accurate to within 3.75% on the high side. The NHTSA doesn't regulate odometer accuracy, and the only industry standard is a voluntary one set by the Society of Automotive Engineers that says odos should be within +/-4%. While the car's affected by the suit fall within that range, Honda recognized that its customers expected their odometers "would be based on zero," and they weren't.
The settlement will lengthen the warranty mileage of affected vehicles by 5% and Honda will pay lease-mileage penalties incurred by owners, which is expected to cost the automaker around $6 million. If you own a 2002 to 2006 Honda or Acura bought between April 12, 2002 and November 7, 2006, then you're eligible for the benefits of the settlement.
The lawsuit also prompted lawyers to test the odometer accuracy of other vehicles. It was found that on average domestic vehicles were nearly perfect in their odo accuracy, while Toyotas actually racked up fewer miles on the clock than they did in reality. Nissans, however, didn't fare as well, and a new class-action suit has been filed on behalf of Altima owners who say their odometers are counting the miles 2.5% to 3% faster than they should.
If you're the owner of certain Toyota products built with the 2.2L I4 or 3.0L V6 between 1997 and 2002, you may soon be receiving notification from the automaker concerning its recent settlement in a class-action lawsuit. Filed as the result of damage caused by sludged oil (which ultimately can destroy an engine by clogging lubrication passages), the suit claimed that affected customers suffered from failures despite following Toyota's maintenance recommendations. As a result, Toyota will be extending the warranty of up to 7.5 million vehicles to 8 years and 120 days from the original purchase date (without regard for mileage), and will pay for damage incurred as a result of oil sludge - also referred to as oil gel.
In 2002, Toyota offered an extended warranty to some owners who were affected by the sludging problem, but many customers claim to have been accused of improper maintenance and were forced to pay for their own repairs.
Sludging is the result of several factors, some of which included longer drain intervals, tighter engine tolerances, and the typically higher operating temperatures of new engines. Several other manufacturers have also faced allegations of oil sludging problems and have responded in a variety of ways.
As a consumer, the best defensive measure is, of course, a regular oil change (following the "severe service" schedule if required) with a name-brand oil that meets the manufacturer's recommendations for viscosity and API service rating. Some manufacturers recommend different viscosities for operation in extremely hot or cold climates; as always, the owner's manual is an outstanding source of information on matters like these.
[Source: Consumer Affairs; a hat tip to AB readers Drew and Ryan]
Simon Evans and his wife/co-driver Sue took the Australian Rally Championship in their Toyota TRD Corolla after finishing a close second on their home turf at the NGK Rally of Melbourne this past Sunday.
Going into the Melbourne rally, the Evans' only needed an eighth place finish in Melbourne to secure the title, and they nearly took first place, only surrendering to Mitsubishi's Scott Peder on a technicality after the two were deadlocked.
All the jokes about the wife giving directions aside, there are doubtlessly many single gearheads out there who wish they could find a spouse to share in their passion.
Ford Motor Co. has been cleared in a class-action lawsuit revolving around the hardware required to attach a license plate to the front of car. Ted Strauss of Texas filed suit against the automaker after he received a $155 fine for not having a front plate on his 2002 Jaguar X-Type. Strauss sued not only Ford but also D & M Leasing, Co. claiming the two had violated Texas state motor vehicle and consumer protection laws, breached implied warranties and were negligent. While Texas is a state that requires motorists to display front license plates, U.S. District Chief Judge A. Joe Fish ruled that Ford and the leasing company had no legal duty to display front license plates, or rear ones for that matter, when a car is sold. We know the frustration Strauss must feel, as many of us live in states that require both front and rear plates. The precedent has been set, though, and by law we're all responsible now for affixing our own plates.
Ford Motor Co. has been cleared in a class-action lawsuit revolving around the hardware required to attach a license plate to the front of car. Ted Strauss of Texas filed suit against the automaker after he received a $155 fine for not having a front plate on his 2002 Jaguar X-Type. Strauss sued not only Ford but also D & M Leasing, Co. claiming the two had violated Texas state motor vehicle and consumer protection laws, breached implied warranties and were negligent. While Texas is a state that requires motorists to display front license plates, U.S. District Chief Judge A. Joe Fish ruled that Ford and the leasing company had no legal duty to display front license plates, or rear ones for that matter, when a car is sold. We know the frustration Strauss must feel, as many of us live in states that require both front and rear plates. The precedent has been set, though, and by law we're all responsible now for affixing our own plates. 
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
Volkswagen unveiling two-door Elise fighter in LA, new sports car
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
In The Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes SLK55 AMG
