Nice "74" Bronco Lifted Ready To Go Or? on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

Ford announces two recalls, 442k vehicles affected in North America

Ford is announcing two recalls for North American that affect a total of 442,300 vehicles and multiple model lines. The larger campaign covers the possibility of electric power steering systems that can fail in the 2011-2013 Ford Flex, Taurus, Lincoln MKS, and MKT; the 2011-2012 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ; and the 2011 Mercury Milan. This recall affects 422,814 vehicles in North America, including 393,622 in the United States, 25,195 in Canada, and 3,997 in Mexico. According to the company, an intermittent electrical connection can cause the power steering to cut out, although manual steering would still work. Ford knows of four minor accidents from this issue, but there are no injuries. Depending on trouble codes from the vehicle, dealers will either upgrade software for the power steering control module or replace the steering gear. The second recall covers 19,486 examples of the 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder engine with a production date between February 14, 2014, and February 10, 2015 at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant. Specifically, there are 19,095 of these in the US and 391 in Canada. These pony cars can show elevated underbody temperatures, which can lead to degradation of the fuel tank, fuel vapor lines, and parking brake cable seals. There are no reports of accidents, injuries or fires from this, though. To fix things, dealers will install a better-insulated fuel tank shield, add thermal patches around the tank and parking brake cable, and put thermal wraps around the fuel vapor lines. You can read the specific build dates and locations for the models affected by the power steering issue in Ford's press release below the video. Related Video: FORD ISSUES TWO SAFETY RECALLS IN NORTH AMERICA DEARBORN, Mich., May 27, 2015 – Ford is issuing two safety recalls in North America. Four minor accidents and no injuries are attributed to one of these conditions.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.