Confirming recent reports, Ford has announced a recall expansion for Ranger pickups built with Takata airbag inflators.

The expanded campaign includes more than 391,000 vehicles globally, including nearly 362,000 sold in the US market. The program focuses on the driver-side airbag inflator for the 2004-2006 model years.

The same vehicles were already recalled last May to replace the passenger-side airbag inflators, also made by Takata. In both cases, the components are prone to rupture with too much force and send shrapnel through the cabin.

Notably, Ford also launched a campaign last year to replace driver-side inflators in 2004-2005 Rangers. The scope was limited to Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands, reflecting the association between propellant degradation and exposure to moisture in the air.

The latest expansion appears to have been prompted by a December accident in which a driver was reportedly killed by shrapnel after his Ranger’s airbag inflator exploded after the vehicle hit a cow in the road.

Safety advocates have argued that faulty inflators should be recalled in all markets, as the failure root cause is not yet completely understood. Some vehicles also spend a significant period of time in high-humidity environments despite registration or sale in another state, such as Florida snowbirds who keep their vehicles registered in a Northern state but drive in the balmy Sunshine State.

“Ford is aware of one report of a death related to a Takata airbag deployment,” the company noted in its recall announcement, without elaborating.

The same inflators were reportedly used in millions of vehicles from several automakers, pointing to an additional wave of related announcements in the near future.

Defense contractor Hendrick Dynamics has modified the Jeep Wrangler for potential use on global battlefields.

The North Carolina-based company expects the US Army to need another vehicle to fill the gap between the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, known as the Humvee, and small Lightweight Tactical All Terrain Vehicles, commonly referred to as side-by-sides in the consumer market.

“One of the best points of the project is you’re starting with such an incredibly capable vehicle which comes right off the line in Toledo,” Hendrick Dynamics general manager Marshall Carlson told The Blade.

The company starts with a diesel-powered Wrangler Rubicon, modified for higher payload capacities and certified for transport via helicopter and aircraft. Adding in a 24-volt electrical system, additional safety provisions and military gear is said to bring the per-unit price up to $75,000.

Hendrick Dynamics is not the first company to view the Wrangler as a useful light vehicle for tactical deployment. Chrysler once established a joint venture to build a specially-modified Wrangler, known as the J8, as an alternative to the Toyota Hilux for foreign militaries.

The J8 was also a diesel variant, upgraded with a payload capacity of nearly 3,000 pounds and a tow rating approaching four tons. Other modifications ranged from a snorkel to armor plating. Some have been manufactured in Egypt, while others are built in Israel and known as the Storm.

The US military has not yet awarded a contract for its next light-duty tactical vehicle.

Mercedes-Benz has reportedly narrowed its name choices for its upcoming pickup truck.

The German automaker is leaning toward the nameplate X-Class, hinting at its utility positioning, though Z-Class has been mentioned as a possible alternative, according to details of a confidential Australian design forum cited by CarAdvice.

The pickup will be based on the Nissan NP300 platform, known as the Frontier in the US market. To help differentiate the Mercedes-Benz adaptation, the German automaker is expected to only offer its pickup in double-cab form. The approach also mitigates potential development expenses in creating single- and extended-cab alternatives.

Despite opting for a single body style, the Mercedes-Benz pickup is said to be offered with three different trim packages. Its interior is believed to take inspiration from the current B-Class.

AMG designers could be working on a few styling tweaks, however a true AMG-tuned variant is not believed to be under consideration.

“An AMG version is highly unlikely, especially for the first version,” cautioned Mercedes-Benz Australia PR manager David McCarthy.

The company has not yet confirmed plans to bring its pickup to the US market.

Ford is reportedly considering a high-performance Ranger pickup that could serve as a smaller sibling to the F-150 Raptor.

Speaking to Australia’s Motoring, Ford Performance global PR manager Paul Seredynski dismissed a Ford Fiesta RS but acknowledged a Ranger Raptor was “a fascinating idea.”

The comments suggest the Ranger’s long-rumored homecoming may be more spectacular than expected.

The Blue Oval has already made a push toward performance positioning for the model, building a Ranger-bodied racer to compete in the Dakar Rally. The 2013 truck was outfitted with a 5.0-liter V8 capable of delivering 348 horsepower and 413 lb-ft of torque.

A production model could be a bit easier to build as the 2017 F-150 Raptor switches from a V8 to an EcoBoost V6. Despite its smaller displacement, the V6 is expected to generate more power — perhaps above 450 ponies. The midsize Ranger would likely come in below the top-spec F-150, however the report points to around 400 horsepower as a likely figure.

With or without a Raptor variant, the Ranger is expected to return to the US market within the next few years.

Daimler chief executive Dieter Zetsche has reportedly expressed surprise at the progress of Apple and Google’s respective car projects.

“Our impression was that these companies can do more and know more than we had previously assumed,” the executive told German paper Welt am Sonntag, as translated by Reuters.

The German automaker at one time vocally protested the tech giants’ involvement in the automotive industry, warning of the privacy implications from data shared via connected infotainment platforms. It has since taken a softer tone, even welcoming partnerships with the companies.

“At the same time they have more respect for our achievements than we thought,” Zetsche added in the latest comments.

Speaking on a ‘theoretical’ basis, the executive last year suggested both companies could build cars with Daimler through joint ventures. Other reports suggest Apple may have already considered a supply agreement with BMW, while Google is said to have established a limited partnership with Ford.

Maserati’s upcoming Levante SUV has been spotted undergoing shakedown testing in the frigid temperatures or the Arctic Circle. Trapped in the gestational stage for the last several years, the Maserati Levante should finally make production later this year.

Maserati has been toying with the idea of a utility vehicle since the introduction of the Kubang concept in 2003, but finally got serious about the matter with a followup show car with the same name in 2011. Since then Maserati has been ironing out the details, with the finished product nearing completion.

The name has obviously changed, but that’s not the only revision that’s taken place since we last saw the Levante is concept form. Previously based on the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Maserati has totally scrapped those plans and has instead based the SUV on the same architecture that underpins the Ghibli and Quattroporte sedans. The Levante will also share powertrains with its car counterparts, meaning we should expect to see a 3.0L V6 and a 3.8L V8. A diesel engine could also be offered for the European market.

The interior of the Levante will closely mirror that of the Quattroporte. The center console will slightly differ, though, and we could see an update to Maserati’s infotainment interface.

Although no official announcement has been made, the Maserati Levante will likely make its global debut at the Geneva Motor Show. Following its Geneva introduction, look for the Levante to go on sale during the second half of 2016.

Tesla has made an impassioned revelation as to why it should be allowed to continue direct-to-customer sales at Federal Trade Commission panels held this week.

Amidst the back and forth between GM and Tesla — in which the Detroit auto giant argued for enforcement of the status quo, while upstart Tesla made a plea for bypassing the dealer system, a case it has fought on a state-by-state basis before — the electric automaker’s lawyer Todd Maron made a strong case for his company’s side. Autoblog‘s Sebastian Blanco has parsed out the key details:

Any discussion of why Tesla sells directly comes back to our mission. Our mission is quite specific. It is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transportation. You can say we’re true believers and it wouldn’t be an unfair characterization. That’s our mission because we fervently believe that transitioning to electric vehicles is critical to the health of our planet and simply because we believe that electric vehicles are superior vehicles to their gas-powered counterparts. They’re higher-performing, they’re more efficient and they’re safer than gas-powered cars.

Other Maron arguments from the panel:

Traditional dealers focus on price, not educating buyers about new technology. In order for Tesla to make sales, it is crucial for the company itself to “evangelize” their cars.

Tesla cannot expect a dealer, which might own franchises selling gasoline-powered brands, to be as passionate when proselytizing about electric cars.

To introduce people to a new brand and new technology, Tesla needs to have small “stores” in malls and similar types of shopping centers, located in high-traffic areas

Since Teslas are built to order, what the company does not need are big lots to inventory hundreds of new cars, which are typically located in suburban or remote areas zoned for dealerships.

Tesla doesn’t even really need a dealership, since the electric cars have far fewer moving parts and thus fewer opportunities for maintenance. Traditional dealerships make a good chunk of their profits by servicing and repairing cars that they’ve sold. In contrast, Tesla makes their money when the car itself is sold. A Tesla will never need an oil change, for example.

Maron continued to imply that Tesla and traditional dealers have a conflict of interest, because the latter are invested in selling gasoline-powered cars. While that may be true for some, many of those brands are also getting in on electric cars. According to Teslarati, FTC chair Edith Ramirez said at the hearing “The automobile marketplace may be on the precipice of dramatic change.” Could that indicate Tesla’s arguments are turning the tide?