2011 Ford Escape Limited Sport Utility 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Submit your questions for Autoblog Podcast #321 LIVE!

We're set to record Autoblog Podcast #321 tonight, and you can drop us your questions and comments regarding the rest of the week's news via our Q&A module below. Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes if you haven't already done so, and if you want to take it all in live, tune in to our UStream (audio only) channel at 10:00 PM Eastern tonight.
Discussion Topics for Autoblog Podcast Episode #321
Unibody Ford Ranger replacement

Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico

President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.