2004 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer 2wd Suv 100k Low Miles 8 Cylinder No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: Ferrari, Ford and Porsche power up for Geneva

Monday was Groundhog Day. Tuesday, apparently, was Sports Car Day. The Ferrari 488 GTB, the Ford Focus RS and the Porsche Cayman GT4 all debuted within hours of each other ahead of their rollouts at the Geneva Motor Show. Three sporty machines, three vastly different approaches – and a lot of implications for enthusiasts. That's a day worth repeating. It also illustrates the opportunities automakers see in the performance market, which is expected to grow in the coming years. Ford estimates the segment has expanded 14 percent in Europe and surged 70 percent in North America since 2009. The Detroit Auto Show was evidence of this, and performance cars of every stripe debuted, including the Acura NSX, Ford GT, Alfa Romeo 4C Spider and several others. This isn't a fad. Performance cars aren't going away. The question is why? Stricter CAFE standards are looming in the United States, as are tighter emissions regulations in Europe. And no one expects gas prices to remain low in America. None of this matters for sports cars, and automakers are increasingly using them to elevate their images. That's why Dodge rolled out two 707-horsepower Hellcats last year. It's why Ford has decided to resurrect the GT for road and track. It's why in the depths of bankruptcy, General Motors continued work on the Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, not to mention the Z06. "Great brands are made one car at a time," Ford of Europe president Jim Farley said at the reveal of the Focus RS. Still, companies make those cars for different reasons. View 5 Photos Mainstream brands like Ford and Dodge want to build cars that get people talking, excite their bases and drive more potential customers into the showroom. They probably don't buy a Focus RS or a Hellcat, but suddenly the regular Focus hatch looks a bit hotter, and that V6 Charger seems to be just a touch more muscular. The halo of performance is alive and well in the eyes of automakers and their customers. "It's one of the most effective catalysts for ingenuity and innovation," said Joe Bakaj, vice president of product development for Ford of Europe. That also leads to a trickle-down effect. Some of the technologies inevitably make their way to other products. It's hard to think the new all-wheel-drive system in the Focus RS that distributes torque front to rear and side to side won't be used in other vehicles. It's different for Ferrari and Porsche.

Mustang parts under the new Lincoln Aviator mean good things for Ford

NEW YORK — As we mentioned last night, underneath the new Lincoln Aviator "concept" there appears to be an independent rear suspension lifted right from the Ford Mustang parts bin. And while it's pretty cool on its face that Mustang rear-drive platform bits are being reused in the broader Ford universe, what this means for the next Explorer could be really cool. A quick caveat: The Aviator here in New York is very close to the production version, but it's not technically a production car. It looks hand-built, with temporary exhaust and some show-car touches. The suspension underneath looks exactly like a Mustang's, but the actual production Aviator will almost certainly use beefier components with the same basic design and geometry, since the Aviator will be much heavier than the smaller Mustang. That being said, we're fairly confident that even at this early stage, the Mustang-derived suspension seen in New York is a preview of what'll be under the production Aviator. Furthermore, Ford won't say it, but based on what we're seeing on Aviator, it's a safe bet that Ford will utilize the Aviator platform for the next Explorer. That would enable the economies of scale necessary to produce a brand new rear-drive-based SUV platform in the first place. It also means that the Explorer should be available without AWD — and given the stable of powerful EcoBoost engines, and the competent 10-speed automatic in the parts bin, a rear-drive Explorer has a shot at being a decent driver. Aviator wouldn't go rear-drive-based if driving dynamics weren't important; Explorer should inherit these priorities. More evidence: The Explorer spy shots we saw back in February sure share the Aviator's general proportions. Even back then, before Aviator was revealed, we were hypothesizing that an EcoBoost 3.5-liter-powered version could boast as much as 400 horsepower, if the Expedition's tune were adopted. Suddenly, the Explorer seems very interesting. So, an EcoBoost, rear-drive Explorer sure sounds like something Ford Performance would be interested in, right? We knew an Explorer ST is coming, but with 365-400 horsepower potential and a chassis designed with dynamics in mind, it doesn't seem like as much of a stretch as the Edge ST. And a performance-oriented AWD system is a possibility, too. That's an area where Ford has been gathering experience at a rapid pace. What do we not expect from a new Explorer? A V8.

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.