Amazing 63 Econoline Cargo Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

Ford to pay $17.35 million over Escape recall

Ford had a bit of a recall spree around this time last year, with a pair of issues on the then-new 2013 Escape, followed by a recall of 423,000 2001 to 2004 Escapes because they might accelerate of their own accord. Accordingly, Uncle Sam pasted Ford with a $17.35 million fine because it took too long to inform customers, according to a report from Automotive News.
Ford agreed to settle with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accepting the fine but not admitting fault. The recall, which afflicted Escapes with the 3.0-liter V-6 along with 217,000 Mazda Tributes from 2001 to 2006 and 2008, was due to faulty gas pedals that could stay down after a driver removed their foot.
Ford issued a statement regarding the fine, saying, "We take the safety of our customers seriously and continuously evaluate our processes for improvements. While we are confident in our current processes for quickly identifying and addressing potential vehicle issues, Ford agreed to this settlement to avoid a lengthy dispute with the government."

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.