Original 1984 Ford Bronco Xlt 4x4, on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy's latest Silverado videos assume we're idiots

UPDATE: This article has been revised to reflect that any mention of materials used in a future Chevrolet Silverado is speculation. Can we have a sound, rational debate about the merits of aluminum versus steel? According to Chevrolet's latest marketing videos pitting the Silverado against the Ford F-150, the answer is no. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of course, this will all be a hilarious joke when an aluminum-bodied Silverado comes in 2018. That's an if, as a member of the General Motor public relations team has reminded me that any articles regarding future product are pure speculation. Until then Chevy needs to sell the current Silverado, with its body comprised chiefly of steel, against the Ford F-150's lightweight aluminum panels. Instead of touting the merits of the "most-dependable, longest lasting pickup," the strategy seems to center around negative propaganda towards the 13th element. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of the three videos, the most fair is Silverado vs. F-150 Repair Costs and Time: Howie Long Head to Head. Basically: aluminum costs more than steel, it's more difficult to repair, and requires special equipment for body shops. In terms of Chevy versus Ford, the blue oval truck costs more and takes longer to repair - an average of $1,755 more and 34 more days in the shop, according to the ad. But why stop there when you can have pitchman Howie Long raising an eyebrow at random facts? When Silverado Chief Engineer Eric Stanczak says of the Ford, "It's manufactured in a way that combines aluminum, rivets, and adhesive in a process that's different than Silverado." Long responds, "Huh. Interesting." At the end of the video, Long says "I'd be interested to know what happens to insurance costs." Note he's not saying anything substantive. If Chevy's legal team could sign off on some facts about insurance rates, it would be in this ad. On our Autoblog Cost to Own calculator, there is no significant difference in projected insurance costs between the two trucks. But at least that ad has facts. The other two videos are pure hype. In Cages: High Stength Steel, real people are asked what they think of aluminum and steel in a room with two cages. Then a bear is released into the room, and the subjects scurry to the safety of the steel cage.

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.

Auto industry insider previews tell-all book, What Did Jesus Drive?

"It's about some of the biggest crises in history. It's about who did it right and who did it wrong." - Jason Vines
Jason Vines, the former head of public relations at Chrysler, Ford and Nissan, has seen a lot during his more than 30-year career, and now he's offering a behind-the-scenes look at the auto industry in his tell-all book What Did Jesus Drive? that went on sale this month.