1997 F250xlt 7.3l Many Upgrades on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford starting up 2.0L EcoBoost engine production in Ohio

Joe Hinrichs, Ford's President of The Americas (pictured above), announced today that in late 2014, the automaker will be building the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder at its Cleveland Engine Plant, a move requiring a $200-million investment and the hiring of 450 new employees. European-built Ford products will continue to source this engine from the Valencia, Spain plant where all of these EcoBoost four-cylinder engines are currently built, and the new Cleveland engines will be used for all North American-made models.
Ford is planning to build its popular EcoBoost engines regionally to maximize production capacity and meet customer demand. Last year, Ford sold 334,364 vehicles with EcoBoost engines in the US alone, and that number is expected to swell to more than 500,000 by the end of this year, with global sales expected to total 1.6 million. By 2015, Ford says that 95 percent of its nameplates will offer an EcoBoost engine.
One such vehicle that could be adding an EcoBoost engine, according to Automotive News, is none other than the 2015 Ford Mustang. The report says that Ford could use either the 2.0-liter EcoBoost or an upcoming 2.3-liter EcoBoost in the sixth-generation pony car.

Curtain officially comes down on Mercury as dealers remove signage

The process of shutting down the Mercury is complete. Ford officially made the decision to close its mid-level brand in June of 2010. In the months that followed, Ford offered its dealers money to stop selling the cars, with production shutting down in September. The last Mercury, a Mariner, rolled off the assembly line in the beginning of October and former spokesperson Jill Wagner said her good-byes to both the car and her job. Now the last piece of the brand has come down as dealers are removing any and all Mercury signage from their lots.
[Source: Detroit News]Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Ford F-150 extended cab struggles in IIHS small overlap test

Update: Ford issued a statement to Autoblog to clarify the results of the test and dispute the IIHS repair cost estimates. A quote from a Ford representative has been added to the story. See the full statement below the IIHS press release. Of all the vehicles undergoing crash tests this year, few will be as closely watched as the new 2015 Ford F-150. That's not only because it remains the top-selling vehicle in America year after year, but also because it features an aluminum body instead of steel. While the F-150 performed well in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety test, one factor prompted the institute to undertake a second round of testing that uncovered a problem. Like most full-size pickups, the F-150 is available in several cab styles: the regular two-door, the extended SuperCab and the four-door SuperCrew. The IIHS typically takes the most popular version of a particular model for testing, and in the Ford truck's case that meant the SuperCrew. The F-150 performed well in all the tests the IIHS put it through, including the small overlap test in which the vehicle is driven 40 miles per hour into a five-foot-tall barrier impacting the front left corner of the vehicle. Its overall performance in the tests earned the F-150 a Top Safety Pick rating, missing out on the higher Top Safety Pick + rating only because it doesn't have an automatic braking system. But how do the other versions of Ford's best-seller hold up? Given that even less popular versions of the F-150 still sell more than many other vehicles on the market, the IIHS put an extended cab through the same battery of tests. It performed comparably except in one area: the small overlap test. In that case, the extended cab model's steering column was pushed eight inches into the cabin (dangerously close to the crash test dummy's chest), the dummy's head missed the airbag almost entirely and hit the instrument panel, and the dummy's legs would risk sustaining "moderate" injuries. The reason for the disparity is that "Ford added structural elements to the crew cab's front frame to earn a good small overlap rating and a Top Safety Pick award but didn't do the same for the extended cab," according to the Institute's chief research officer David Zuby. "That shortchanges buyers who might pick the extended cab thinking it offers the same protection in this type of crash as the crew cab.