1999 Ford F-350 Super Duty Lariat 6 Speed Manual 4-door Truck Dually on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ram and Alfa Romeo top J.D. Power study of best automaker websites

Imagining a new car can be terrific fun, especially if the new car is an Alfa Romeo. So say the fantasy engineers at the J.D. Power agency, who’ve found that Alfa and Ram, sister brands under the Stellantis umbrella, offer potential buyers the most attractive consumer websites, which are often their first viable encounter with those vehicles. Power found that those marques lead the mass market and premium categories in its twice annual Manufacturer Website Evaluation Study. In the premium segment, Alfa Romeo led with 755 points, up six points over BMW, 10 points ahead of Infiniti, 14 points past of Jaguar, and 18 points up on Porsche. By contrast, Volvo and Audi trail the pack with 689 points, and are behind Genesis (699 points), Tesla (720), and Cadillac (721), all of which perform worse than the premium segment average of 724 points. The summerÂ’s study showed that in the mass market segment, Ram leads with an impressive 735 points, which puts it six points ahead of GMC, seven points atop its stablemate Jeep, eight points beyond Subaru, and 22 points ahead of the industry average. Volkswagen finished dead last among mass market names, but only one point behind Ford, 684 to 683 out of a possible 1,000. Segment average, as noted, was 713 points. “Website satisfaction can be volatile, and automotive websites are not immune to changing preferences,” said Jon Sundberg, director of digital solutions at J.D. Power. “However, manufacturers have shown to be very agile when it comes to website design and ensuring their sites meet modern standards, more so than many other industries, as exemplified through the study data.” Marketing/Advertising Alfa Romeo Audi BMW Ford Volkswagen

Ford Escort Concept goes back to basics

Here's the thing about China: The folks buying cars there have a very different set of standards than shoppers in many other markets around the globe. While we all drool over hot metal with bold designs, and while we appreciate automakers going an extra step to inject even their cheapest offerings with aggressive and interesting cues, that sort of sheetmetal sex appeal doesn't always sell in the People's Republic. Case in point is Jaguar, which may be designing a more traditional-looking version of its XJ for the Chinese market, or more to the point of this story, Ford currently sells the less-exciting, last-generation Focus compact in China right alongside the new one.
So consider this new Shanghai-bound C-segment concept a preview of what's to come for that more traditional, budget-minded, less-sexy market. More proof of this pudding: Ford's even calling this concept the Escort - a nod to the Blue Oval's compact car days of yore, and a name that stirs up thoughts of basic, affordable transportation rather than great driving dynamics or bold design. "Customers in China described seeking a vehicle that is stylish - but not one that is arrogant or pretentious," Ford states. And this new Escort concept previews a possibility of providing exactly that for this rapidly expanding automotive market.
What you're looking at, then, is one of the most simple Ford designs we've seen of late, though it still incorporates all of the automaker's latest DNA. The signature hexagonal grille is front and center, flanked by attractive LED headlamps and chrome-rimmed foglamp housings. The entire car's design focuses on clean, smooth surfaces, with one strong character line flowing from front to back just below the beltline. We will say that the car looks decidedly more premium from the rear view, where narrow, horizontal taillamps with an LED accent give the car added visual width. Bland as it may be, it's a handsome little concept, though fear what would likely happen if all of the conceptual details get dumbed down for a production model.

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.