1949 Ford F-100 Pickup Truck Hot Rat Rod Barn Find! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Shelby GT350, GT350R Mustang option pricing leaked [UPDATE]

UPDATE: Ford wasn't willing to elaborate on Mustang6G's pricing report, with spokesperson Said Deep simply saying, "We haven't announced pricing at this time." The limited availability of the new 2015 GT350 and GT350R isn't the only Ford Mustang news today, as a leaked report by Mustang6G has shined a light on the cost of the optional equipment we first reported on way back in January. First, we have the standard GT350. As we reported earlier, only 50 cars will get the $7,500-Tech Package, which includes magnetic ride control, navigation with Sync 3, dual-zone climate control, and heated, air-conditioned, leather-upholstered, and powered seats. The other 50 standard models will get the $6,500-Track Package. You'll still get magnetic ride control, selectable driving modes and enhanced cooling systems for the engine oil, trans and diff. Stand-alone navigation is $795, a black roof is $695, stripes are $475, and as with the standard Mustang, Triple Yellow Clearcoat paint is $495. Fancy one of the just 37 GT350Rs? You'll pony up (pun intended) an extra $3,500 on top of the price of a GT350. From there, Mustang6G cites a $3,000-SVT Touring Package, which we think references the Electronics Package (navigation, Sync 3, and dual-zone climate control). Outside of those two items, the GT350R's only additional options include a black roof, stand-alone nav, and stripes, all of which carry the same price as the standard car. Like our report earlier today, these prices appear to only be for the 2015 model. While production outputs for the 2016 will probably increase, we can't be sure whether these prices be carried over, as well. Mustang6G claims it will have a starting price "very soon," which we'll naturally bring you as soon as it's published. We've also reached out to Ford to confirm this report as well as get any info on the GT350's starting price. Stay tuned. Related Video:

Ford Explorer problems gutted third-quarter sales

In early September, the Detroit Free Press published a feature noting numerous problems Ford's having with the 2020 Explorer and 2020 Lincoln Aviator launches. Issues with both SUVs, built at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, were so rife and dire that the automaker was trucking the vehicles 275 miles away to Michigan for repairs. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Explorer's third-quarter sales dropped 48 percent compared to the previous model in 2018, with dealers unable to get enough units on lots for customers. Nor is the snafu over: Automotive News reports that another "batch of about 2,500 Explorers in need of repairs" arrived recently in Michigan, and sales through the first nine months of 2019 are down 31 percent. Sales dips during model changeovers are to be expected as old inventory gets sold down and new production ramps up, but this is different. Ford U.S. sales boss Mark LaNeve told Bloomberg earlier this month, "We’ve got adequate inventory in our stores. For Q4, availability wonÂ’t be an issue. WeÂ’ll be able to hit our stride with Explorer starting now." It's hard to know whether that's true, with thousands of Explorers still piling into Michigan; the batch AN mentioned represents about 5 days of sales during an average month in 2018, before the drawdown and interruptions hampered matters. And when Consumer Reports tested the Ford Explorer it bought this summer, it titled the review, "2020 Ford Explorer drives nicely but has many flaws / Poor interior quality and a high price overshadow the SUV's improvements."   On top of that, the AN piece mentions a new impediment to uncorking the Explorer sales stream: Worker strife in the Chicago plant. Allegedly, "Roving groups of workers are intimidating other employees, creating a hostile environment, the people said. ThatÂ’s driving up turnover and leaving some vehicle assembly unfinished, contributing to the company having to complete the work at the Michigan factory or at dealerships, the people said." Ford's been fined twice before for the same kinds of issues at its plants, once in 1999, again in 2017, but a spokesperson said Ford isn't aware of any such problems now. The pressure otherwise has got to be unpleasant for everyone on the Explorer team, from CEO Jim Hackett down. The automaker was meant to be "turning the corner" in April, but as of now, shares are down, credit rating is down, earnings are down.

GM says it favors fuel-efficiency rules based on historic rates

WASHINGTON — General Motors backs an annual increase in fuel-efficiency standards based on "historic rates" rather than tough Obama era rules or a Trump administration proposal that would freeze requirements, according to a federal filing made public on Monday. The largest U.S. automaker said the Obama rules that aimed to hike fleet fuel efficiency to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025 are "not technologically feasible or economically practicable." The Detroit automaker said that since 1980, the motor vehicle fleet has improved fuel efficiency at an average rate of 1 percent a year. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV said in separate comments that the auto industry is complying with existing fuel efficiency requirements by using credits from prior model years. As a result, even if requirements are frozen at 2020 levels, "the industry would need to continue to improve fuel economy" as credits expire, it added, warning if the government hikes standards beyond 2020 requirements "the situation worsens ... without some significant form of offset or flexibility." Fiat Chrysler and Ford urged the government to reclassify two-wheel drive SUVs as light trucks, which face less stringent requirements than cars. A four-wheel drive version of the same SUV is considered a light truck. Ford backs fuel rules "that increase year-over-year with additional flexibility to help us provide more affordable options for our customers." GM's comments said it was "troubled" that President Donald Trump's administration wants to phase out incentives for electric vehicles. The Trump plan's preferred alternative freezes standards at 2020 levels through 2026 and hikes U.S. oil consumption by about 500,000 barrels per day in the 2030s but reduces automakers' collective regulatory costs by more than $300 billion. It would bar California from requiring automakers to sell a rising number of electric vehicles or setting state emissions rules. The administration of former President Obama had adopted rules, effective in 2021, calling for an annual increase of 4.4 percent in fuel-efficiency requirements from 2022 through 2025. GM has been lobbying Congress to lift the existing cap on electric vehicles eligible for a $7,500 tax credit. The credit phases out over a 12-month period after an individual automaker hits 200,000 electric vehicles sold, and GM is close to that point.