2002 Ford Econoline Wagon on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford not backing down on MPG-based marketing strategy

The Blue Oval may have to back off a bit from the green messaging. Ford has had to lower fuel-economy ratings on a number of 2013 and 2014 model-year vehicles, namely its hybrids. And that may force the US automaker to rethink some of its marketing strategy, Automotive News reports. Ford has spent much of the year pushing its fuel-efficiency improvements, with everything from a Super Bowl ad saying its Fusion Hybrid gets "almost double" the fuel efficiency of an average vehicle (after the recalculation, it's now more like 75 percent better) to claiming the Fiesta is the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid in the US (it's actually the Mitsubishi Mirage) to stating the C-Max Hybrid gets better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius V (it doesn't). Nonetheless, Ford doesn't plan on changing its mpg marketing emphasis anytime soon, the company said in an e-mailed statement to AutoblogGreen. "Providing customers great fuel economy is a key part of our Ford vehicle DNA." "Providing customers great fuel economy is a key part of our Ford vehicle DNA," the company said. "We will continue to highlight our vehicles features and attributes in our advertising and marketing, which includes fuel economy and fuel-saving technologies like EcoBoost and hybrids." Earlier this month, Ford said it would lower the fuel-economy ratings of models such as the C-Max, Fusion and Lincoln MKZ Hybrids as well as most of the Fiesta line because of mistakes in the company's internal testing data. It was the second change for the C-Max Hybrid. The good news for Ford is that its fleetwide fuel economy is up almost 40 percent from a decade ago, compared to an improvement of around 23 percent for Toyota. Still, while sales of Ford hybrids and plug-ins are about even with last year through the first five months of 2014, C-Max Hybrid sales have plunged 49 percent from a year earlier. Earlier this year, Ford admitted that the first fuel economy downgrade had a negative effect on sales and we can find proof in the numbers. Before that the change was announced, in August 2013, Ford was consistently selling over 2,000 – and sometimes over 3,000 – C-Max Hybrids a month. In September, it dropped to 1,424, then to 1,438 in October. It didn't climb back above 2,000 until May 2014. The second mpg adjustment was announced in June.

Should reflective paint earn automakers EPA credits?

No matter where you look around the world, governments are cracking down on vehicle emissions and aiming for higher fuel economy standards. Generally, automakers are pushing back against the increased regulation, and in the US, General Motors, Ford, and FCA US are looking for new compromises. The Big Three want to the EPA to grant them retroactive emissions credits for using tech that they claim reduces CO2 but not on the government agency's on-road testing. Among these technologies are things like reflective paint and glass, LED lights, ventilated seats, stop/start, and more efficient air conditioning compressors. Starting with the 2014 model year, the automakers can receive credits for a few grams per mile reductions on models with some of these solutions, according to Automotive News. However, the companies are also petitioning the EPA to make the credits apply to earlier vehicles with them, as well. The emissions advantages for systems like stop/start and less polluting AC refrigerants seem fairly obvious. For reflective paint and glass, the belief is that keeping a vehicle interior cooler should mean a lower need for air conditioning and therefore a decrease in CO2. Margo Oge, the former boss of the EPA's Office of Transportation Air Quality, told Automotive News these credits are part of the plan. "That's the whole point of what we tried to establish," she said. "We wanted companies to invest in and develop these technologies." The EPA wants vehicle emissions at the corporate average equivalent of 54.4 miles per gallon fuel economy by 2025, and so far that seems achievable. It will translate to less than 40 mpg on the EPA sticker. In a report last summer, the industry was about 10 grams per mile of CO2 better than the rules required, and that was solely based on 2012 model year vehicles. In an update for 2013, the companies were up to 12 grams per mile beyond targets. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Mark Humphrey / AP Photo Government/Legal Green Ford GM Emissions Fuel Efficiency FCA fca us

Ford could make as much as $13k profit for every F-150

The Ford F-Series is a perennial member of the US bestseller list with the title in its brawny grasp for over 30 years, and the truck ranks as the top-selling model over $50,000 in the country. It shouldn't come as a shock then that the model is a major buttress of Ford's bottom line. Have you ever wondered just how vital the trucks are to the Blue Oval's health, though? Some math based on recent figures suggests they might be even more important than you think. Automotive News recently did the calculation and came up with that each F-150 sold contributed about $13,333 to the company's profits. That number was based on a statement from Ford CFO Bob Shanks that the automaker could have made another $1 billion in North America for the first quarter with a repeat of last year's sales of the F-150 and Edge, with 60,000 more trucks and 15,000 additional crossovers. If those 75,000 missing vehicles cost the company $1 billion, then they averaged $13,333 each. Also, the F-150 makes up 80 percent of the lost sales, so you might even conclude that each pickup brings even more money into Ford. Automotive News also extrapolates further. Based on a forecast of 800,000 F-Series sales this year, that's about $10.7 billion going into Ford's coffers. Obviously, these figures are far from exact since they are based on a single statement from the automaker's CFO. Autoblog reached out to Ford to see if the numbers were accurate, but the Blue Oval wouldn't comment on vehicle profitability. However, AutoPacific analyst Dave Sullivan suggests these figures could be on the right track, if a bit high. "The rough guess has been $10,000. Obviously that is a little different for a $60k truck vs a regular cab 4x2 work truck, but $10,000 is the ball park that is used," he said to Autoblog. If you ever wonder why Ford might be loathe to bring the smaller Ranger back to the US when it's available elsewhere, these huge profits are likely part of the answer. The Blue Oval has little reason to cut into the sales of a model that makes the brand billions. Related Video: