1956 Ford F100 Chopped, Shaved, Nice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Recharge Wrap-up: Ford steals Best Green Brand spot from Toyota, EV buyer survey goes online

Chevrolet is one of the Top Global Green Brands of 2014, according to brand consultancy firm Interbrand. Chevy ranks number 32 on the list, which cover brands across a wide variety of segments. The report measures brand perception and brand performance, and the gap between the two is small for Chevrolet. "The company is not only actively demonstrating its environmental commitment," says Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton. "It's communicating those efforts in an authentic way that resonates with customers." Chevrolet cites its Spark EV, Volt and Cruze models as reason for its green cred. This is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Being 32nd is good and all, but other automotive brands ranked much higher than the Bowtie. Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan took the top four spots in the report, respectively, with BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz all besting Chevrolet. The big takeaway here is that Ford topped the list. In the Top Global Green Brand list's four-year history, this is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Ford was second on the list last year, and 15th in 2012. "Ford embodies everything the business of the future must be: efficient, visionary, flexible, adept at problem-solving, cooperative, and focused on creating shared value," Interbrand says on its website. "From unveiling a first-of-its-kind solar-powered vehicle, the C-MAX Solar Energi Concept, to partnering with peers across sectors to do the seemingly impossible - like creating bio-plastic out of tomato fiber with Heinz-Ford is showing us what's possible." It bears mentioning that Ford's most recent MPG adjustments came after the study was conducted. Ford is also making the news for its 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine earning International Engine of the Year for the third straight year. Awarded Best Engine Under 1.0 Liter, the turbocharged three-cylinder motor earned high praise from judges. "This year's competition was the fiercest yet, but the 1.0-liter EcoBoost continues to stand out for all the right reasons – great refinement, surprising flexibility and excellent efficiency," said International Engine of the Year co-chairman Dean Slavnich. "The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is one of the finest examples of powertrain engineering." The 123-horsepower engine powers the Fiesta 1.0-liter EcoBoost, and will be available in a version of the Ford Focus in the US later this year. See more about the award in the press release, below.

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost

I'll be honest; when Ford first unveiled its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, I was skeptical. Past attempts at building turbocharged American cars were almost universally awful, I reasoned, so why would Ford's latest effort be any different? This may seem foolish today, considering the success that the growing EcoBoost range has achieved - particularly the 2.0-liter and 1.6-liter mills. Yet I once again found myself questioning Ford.
It's the makeup of the 1.0-liter, turbocharged three-cylinder slotted into the compact engine bay of this Fiesta that has a way of breeding doubt. Three-cylinder engines remain an extreme rarity in the US. What's more, they earned a less-than-desirable reputation for applications in the 1980s and 1990s, and my trepidation about this latest three-pot as a result.
As I found out, though, history is a poor informant of modern technology. The thrust available in other cars with the EcoBoost badge on the back has not gone missing here; something the International Engine of the Year committee has lauded. That august body named the 1.0-liter Ecoboost the best engine of 2012 and 2013. After a week of driving, it didn't take long for my fear of threes to get turned into something like that line of thinking.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.