Xlt Super Cab 4dr, Short Box, 4x4, 5.4 V8, 1 Owner No Accident, Warranty, Clean! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports declares most and least loved cars [w/video]

Consumer Reports is crunching the numbers from its annual owner-satisfaction survey, and part of that process is finding out how attached drivers are to their cars. CR simply asks readers of models up to three years old if they would buy the same vehicle again in light of their entire ownership experience, and tallies the results. After looking at the responses for about 350,000 vehicles, it turns out that people really love a certain California-built, electrically powered luxury sedan. That's right, this year's the overall winner was the Tesla Model S with a whopping 98 percent of owners saying they would purchase another one (the Model S also won this award last year, with 99 percent satisfaction). The Chevrolet Corvette Stingray came in a close second with 95 percent of drivers hoping to park another one in their garage. A few models weren't quite so favored, though. The Nissan Versa Sedan was the least loved model among its owners; a mere 42 percent said that they would purchase another. The aging Jeep Compass didn't do much better, with just 43 percent of drivers willing to buy the softroader again. On average, about 70 percent of owners say they would buy their car again, and only four cars ranked below 50 percent in CR's findings. Check out the video above to see some of the winners and losers in a few of CR's categories. If you're a subscriber, you can check out the full list on its website. Related Gallery Consumer Reports Most Loved Cars 2014 Related Gallery Consumer Reports Least Loved Cars 2014 News Source: Consumer Reports - sub. req., Consumer Reports via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Mazda Mercedes-Benz Porsche Subaru Tesla Ownership Videos car ownership

Major automakers post mixed US June sales figures

General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV posted declines in US new vehicle sales for June on Monday, while major Japanese automakers reported stronger figures. Once again, demand for pickup trucks and crossovers offset a decline in sedan sales. Automakers' shares rose as overall industry sales still came in above Wall Street expectations. The US auto industry is bracing for a downturn after hitting a record 17.55 million new vehicles sold in 2016. Analysts had predicted that overall, US vehicle sales would fall in June for the fourth consecutive month. As the market has shown signs of cooling, automakers have hiked discounts and loosened lending terms. Car shopping website Edmunds said on Monday the average length of a car loan reached an all-time high of 69.3 months in June. "It's financially risky, leaving borrowers exposed to being upside down on their vehicles for a large chunk of their loans," said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds' executive director of industry analysis. GM said its sales fell about 5 percent versus June 2016, but that the industry would see stronger sales in the second half of 2017 versus the first half. "Under the current economic conditions, we anticipate US retail vehicle sales will remain strong for the foreseeable future." GM shares were up 2.4 percent in morning trading, while Ford rose 3.3 percent and FCA shares jumped 6 percent. "US total sales are moderating due to an industry-wide pullback in daily rental sales, but key US economic fundamentals clearly remain positive," said GM chief economist Mustafa Mohatarem. "Under the current economic conditions, we anticipate US retail vehicle sales will remain strong for the foreseeable future." Ford said its sales for June were hit by lower fleet sales to rental agencies, businesses, and government entities, which fell 13.9 percent, while sales to consumers were flat. But it sold a record 406,464 SUVs in the first half of the year, with Explorer sales increasing 23 percent in June. And sales of the F-150 had their strongest June since 2001. On a media call, Ford executives said an initial read of automakers' sales figures indicated a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of around 17 million new vehicles for the month, which would be better than 16.6 million units analysts had predicted. FCA said June sales decreased 7 percent versus the same month a year earlier.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.