1956 Ford F-100 Panel Truck on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Edge First Drive [w/videos]

We're routinely told that it's not easy being the middle child. The oldest sibling will always outshine the rest, while the youngest is routinely doted upon. The middle child, meanwhile, is seemingly never able to measure up. You know the drill: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! But that hasn't really been the case for Ford's mid-kid crossover, the Edge. Sandwiched between its highly successful big brother, the Explorer, and the stylish younger brother, the Escape, the Edge has had plenty of its own bragging rights over the years. It's where the Blue Oval chose to first launch MyFord Touch in 2011, and was one of the company's first applications of an EcoBoost engine in a CUV. For 2015, Ford has given the Edge a brand-new outfit, complete with stand-out sheetmetal and a revamped 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine fitted with a twin-scroll turbocharger and direct-injection. The result is a vehicle that truly stands out from its compact and fullsize siblings while promising to retain Ford's edge in the midsize CUV market. Where many of Ford's cars have opted for a slim, Aston Martin-like grille, the new Edge's face is big and bold. It's around back, however, where the Edge really comes up with its own personality. The slimmer D-pillar forms the edges of a more aggressively raked rear window. It's difficult to spot in pictures, but the result is a decidedly more assertive profile than the outgoing CUV. Beyond that, the rear is home to Fusion-inspired taillights, although unlike Ford's popular midsize sedan, they're joined together by a vehicle-spanning lighting element that prominently features a Ford badge at its center. Ford's work on the Edge's interior is less progressive, though. The owner of a 2014 model wouldn't feel the least bit out of place climbing behind the wheel of a 2015, as it features Ford's same reconfigurable instrument cluster, and a center stack that's been crowned by the latest (and final) edition of MyFord Touch. Meanwhile, more JD Power Initial Quality Study-friendly buttons have replaced the obstinate and unintuitive touch-capacitive controls. The conservative take on the interior design belies the big improvements in material quality. The leather inserts in the doors are more heavily padded and the plastics are far softer. It's a similar story throughout the cabin, where owners will notice softer dash plastics and generally richer materials.

MotorWeek relives '80s coupes with Dodge Daytona, Ford Escort EXP

Get ready for a wave of nostalgia and the rapid realization of the huge progress in performance cars over the last 30 years. For its latest Retro Review, MotorWeek takes a look back at two, front-wheel drive coupes from the '80s that seem to have entirely vanished from the roads today. Both the 1986 Dodge Daytona CS and the 1986.5 Ford Escort EXP were considered affordable, sporty options in their day, but the passage of time hasn't been kind to either of their specs. The Daytona certainly looks the part of a performance machine with a body that's reminiscent of other '80s coupes, like the third-gen Chevrolet Camaro. However with 146 horsepower and 170 pound-feet of torque from a 2.2-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, acceleration wasn't exactly a strong suit. MotorWeek complained about copious torque steer, as well. The optional CS suspension upgrade package on this Daytona was apparently a nod to Carroll Shelby who was working with Dodge at the time. If anything, the Escort EXP withstands the test of time even worse. As a two-seat coupe, you might have expected Ford's engineers to really turn up the performance to fit the sporty image that the exterior conveyed. That didn't really happen, and depending on which model buyers ordered, they got either 86 horsepower with a 1.9-liter engine or the "high-output" version of that mill with 108 hp.

Suppliers love Toyota and Honda: Why that matters to you

You might think that a survey of automotive suppliers and their relationship with OEMs is the automotive equivalent of nerd prom. In some ways that's what the North American Automotive OEM-Supplier Working Relations Index (WRI) is. The study, the 17th annual conducted by Planning Perspectives Inc., is based on input from 652 salespeople from 108 Tier One suppliers, or, PPI points out, 40 of the top 50 automotive suppliers in North America. Suppliers to General Motors, Ford, FCA, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. But the results have consequences in terms of tens of millions of dollars for OEMs - and in the quality, technology, and cost of the next vehicle you buy. There are a couple of ways to look at the results of the WRI. One is, "So what else is new?" And the other is, "Damn! How did that happen?" The study looks at five relationship areas — OEM Supplier Relationship; OEM Communication; OEM Help; OEM Hindrance; Supplier Profit Opportunity — within six purchasing areas — Body-in-White; Chassis; Electrical/Electronics; Exterior; Interior; Powertrain. In the overall rankings, Toyota is on top for the 15 th time in 17 years, with a score of 328. Honda, the only company to best Toyota (in 2009 and 2010), comes in second, at 319. Those two companies, explains John Henke, president of PPI, have collaborative working arrangements with colleagues and suppliers alike built into the very fabric of their cultures. This, however, is not a situation where one can readily conclude it is about "Japanese companies," because the third company with headquarters on the island of Honshu, Nissan, came in dead last. This is the "How did that happen?" portion. The Nissan score of 203 puts it 125 points behind Toyota. There hasn't been a number that low since the then-Chrysler Corp. scored 187 in 2010, when the company was clawing its way out of the recession. Clearly, the suppliers don't feel particularly engaged by the buyers at Nissan. Henke explains that whether a company does well or not on the WRI is rather simple. All people do things based on what they're measured on. "If you're measured on taking 10% out of your annual buy, you immediately know how to do it. But if you're also measured on improving relations, suddenly there is a new dynamic as to what you can do to achieve both.