2004 Ford Excursion Limited Diesel 4wd-no Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Vaughn Gittin Jr. takes his dog for a drift

Vaughn Gittin Jr. spends a great deal of his workday going sideways, but he's usually alone in the endeavor. For a guy that is clearly a dog lover, we imagine that can get a bit lonely.
That won't be a problem for Gittin in this latest video, which features the racer hanging out with his good pal Brody (a dog) and everyone's favorite hot hatch, the Ford Fiesta ST.

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.

Jaguar design boss admits X-Type was a mistake

History has a way of repeating itself, especially in the auto industry. When Jaguar was owned by Ford, the British brand attempted to field a competitor for the BMW 3 Series, called the X-Type. Based on the bones of a Ford Mondeo, it aped the styling of Jaguar's flagship model, the XJ, while borrowing liberally from the Ford parts bin. That was 2001.
Now, in 2013, Jaguar is planning a new 3 Series challenger based on the platform previewed by the C-X17 Concept, while Ford is attempting to take the latest Mondeo upmarket. The moves have both brands recognizing where, why, and how the X-Type failed. "It didn't look mature or powerful or anything. It was just a car," Jaguar's current head of advanced design, Julian Thomson, told PistonHeads. Basing the X-Type on a front-drive car while giving it styling that was meant for a rear-driver lead to proportions that "were plainly wrong," Thomson told PH. Ford's European head of quality, Gunnar Herrmann, added that the X-Type was "a fake Jaguar, because every piece I touch is Ford."
For what it's worth, the X-Type's successor in the segment will sport rear-drive, with plenty of input from Ian Callum. Thomson described the new model, which would challenge the 3 Series as having, "Big wheels right to the ends of the car, low bonnet, short overhangs, very low cabins." Sounds good to us.