Very Nice 2011 Model Xlt Package 12 Pass. With Tv / Dvd System! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports: Ford Fusion fun but flawed; Mitsubishi i-MiEV slow, chintzy [w/videos]

Waiting for a Ford compliment from Consumer Reports these days is like waiting for a low-cost new product from Apple. So we weren't really expecting a glowing review of the 2013 Ford Fusion when CR got its hands on the car. The institute's crew bought three different versions of the Fusion (Hybrid, 1.6-liter EcoBoost and a Titanium with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost) to put through its barrage of tests, and while we aren't too surprised by some of the findings, they're still interesting nonetheless.
CR praises the Fusion for its "eye-catching" design and says that the sportier Titanium trim level is the best-handling midsize sedan they've ever tested, but that's about where the good news ends for Ford. The Fusion Hybrid also posted the best-ever fuel economy CR has recorded in a midsize sedan, but the only problem is that their number was 39 miles per gallon combined - far less than Ford's 47 mpg rating for city, highway and combined. As expected, CR also dinged the Fusion for its MyFord Touch, but some of the other gripes about the car include a cramped cabin and poor fit and finish.
Other Ford products tested this time around include the Focus Electric and C-Max Hybrid. Like the Fusion, CR's observed fuel economy of 37 mpg for the C-Max fell well short of Ford's advertised 47-mpg rating, and both cars were criticized for the use of MyFord Touch. CR notes that the Focus Electric's interior is also cramped, with the battery pack taking up a lot of cargo space.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Ford CEO told Trump 1 million jobs at stake because of fuel economy regs

Bloomberg is reporting that Mark Fields, Ford's CEO, pushed President Donald Trump for market-driven national fuel economy standards, and that up to a million jobs could be at stake if those national regulations didn't take consumer expectations into account. Fields was reporting on his conversation with Trump in remarks made at the National Automobile Dealers Association in New Orleans, Bloomberg reports. The report also states that he and fellow CEOs Mary Barra of GM and Sergio Marchionne of FCA aren't seeking to eliminate fuel economy standards altogether, but rather to make them more flexible. Bloomberg reports that Fields didn't cite the studies he was referring to in support of his job loss figures, so we can't independently verify Fields' math at this time. But his push to stop selling cars consumers don't want – that is to say, more hybrids and EVs than consumer demand supports right now – is clear. We've already reported on that. To level an educated guess at what will happen next, Trump seems likely to reduce the stringent 2025 fuel economy targets, perhaps freezing them at current levels. The automakers are already invested in producing vehicles that meet current standards, and they also have to think about foreign markets like Europe that aren't likely to relax standards below current levels. If you consider economies of scale, automakers are likely to ask for federal standards that match global standards for their largest markets as closely as possible. We'll see if Trump buys Fields' math, but Ford isn't hedging its bets. Backing out of the Mexican assembly plant cost the company $200 million – not a huge sum compared to the total value of Ford, a massive company which had its second best year ever, but still an important gesture to Trump about Ford's priorities. Related Video: News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images Government/Legal Green Fiat Ford GM Sergio Marchionne Mary Barra Mark Fields