2004 Ford F-350 Super Duty Lariat Extended Cab Pickup 4-door 6.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost to hit 45 mpg for $16,445*

When Ford first announced its plan to put the 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder engine under the hood of the 2014 Fiesta, it promised hybrid-like fuel economy without a hybrid-like premium. We're still waiting for official specs on this engine, but thanks to the EPA's fueleconomy.gov website and Ford's retail site, we now know what customers can expect in terms of both fuel economy and price.
All along, Ford has said that it expects the 1.0-liter EcoBoost to get more than 40 miles per gallon on the highway, and now the EPA backs this up with official ratings of 32 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. These numbers are an increase of two mpg city and four mpg hwy compared to the current fuel-sipping Fiesta (the 1.6 SFE), and it also beats other three-cylinder cars for highway mileage like the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage (44 mpg highway) and 2014 Smart Fortwo (38 mpg highway); the Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost is lower than both three-pot rivals, though, in city fuel economy with the Mitsubishi getting 37 mpg city and the Smart rated at 34 mpg city. This model handily beats high-volume small cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Chevy Spark in both city and highway numbers.
As for pricing, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is offered on both the sedan and hatchback as a $995 option called the SE Manual EcoBoost package, which is aptly named since it's only offered on SE trim-level Fiestas equipped with a manual transmission. Along with the engine, the package also comes with 15-inch steel wheels, regenerative brakes and a decklid spoiler on the sedan. This means the four-door Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost will start at $16,445*, or $17,045* for the hatchback (*not including $795 for destination).

GM takes 2020 full-size pickup sales crown

It's no secret that 2020 was an unconventional year for auto sales. Extenuating circumstances or not, it was a year of upheaval even for ever-resilient (and ever-profitable) pickups, with General Motors taking the crown from Ford in the full-size segment.  The Ford F-Series still outsold every other full-size pickup nameplate in the country by a significant margin. It's only when you combine GM's Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra variants that you get a number that exceeds Ford's. This isn't really a new phenomenon, either. In fact, it was only somewhat recently that Ford took the overall full-size crown away from GM, and not only did Ford widen the gap in recent years, but Ram has once again become a legitimate challenger, even managing to outsell the Silverado by a healthy margin in 2019, but never coming close to the F-Series in terms of total volume.  But, 2020 being 2020, things got weird yet again. Ram remains relevant, of course, but Ford got caught with its pants down thanks to the one-two punch of COVID and the generational changeover of the core F-150 model, which resulted in a production interruption as the company's assembly facilities transitioned from building the old 2020 model to the new-for-2021. This perfect storm, as it turns out, was sufficient for GM to walk away with the full-size crown. See for yourself: Full-size 2020 pickup sales: GM total: 847,110 F-Series: 787,422 Silverado: 594,094 Ram: 563,676 Sierra: 253,016 Tundra: 109,203 Titan: 26,439 As you can see, Ram slipped back behind Silverado, slotting comfortably into third place. The Silverado 1500 had a flat year, but the heavy- and medium-duty variants bucked the trend and contributed to a slight uptick in sales for the nameplate, while F-Series tumbled more than 12% (nearly 110,000 units), opening the door for GM to steam ahead.  There were similarly significant shakeups in the midsize truck segment. First, 2020 was the first full year of retail sales for the Gladiator pickup, which surged to fourth place behind the stalwart Tacoma, Ranger and Colorado. GM's combined sales of the Colorado and Canyon are good enough for second place by manufacturer, but nowhere close to what it would take to dethrone Toyota.

Ford F-150 extended cab struggles in IIHS small overlap test

Update: Ford issued a statement to Autoblog to clarify the results of the test and dispute the IIHS repair cost estimates. A quote from a Ford representative has been added to the story. See the full statement below the IIHS press release. Of all the vehicles undergoing crash tests this year, few will be as closely watched as the new 2015 Ford F-150. That's not only because it remains the top-selling vehicle in America year after year, but also because it features an aluminum body instead of steel. While the F-150 performed well in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety test, one factor prompted the institute to undertake a second round of testing that uncovered a problem. Like most full-size pickups, the F-150 is available in several cab styles: the regular two-door, the extended SuperCab and the four-door SuperCrew. The IIHS typically takes the most popular version of a particular model for testing, and in the Ford truck's case that meant the SuperCrew. The F-150 performed well in all the tests the IIHS put it through, including the small overlap test in which the vehicle is driven 40 miles per hour into a five-foot-tall barrier impacting the front left corner of the vehicle. Its overall performance in the tests earned the F-150 a Top Safety Pick rating, missing out on the higher Top Safety Pick + rating only because it doesn't have an automatic braking system. But how do the other versions of Ford's best-seller hold up? Given that even less popular versions of the F-150 still sell more than many other vehicles on the market, the IIHS put an extended cab through the same battery of tests. It performed comparably except in one area: the small overlap test. In that case, the extended cab model's steering column was pushed eight inches into the cabin (dangerously close to the crash test dummy's chest), the dummy's head missed the airbag almost entirely and hit the instrument panel, and the dummy's legs would risk sustaining "moderate" injuries. The reason for the disparity is that "Ford added structural elements to the crew cab's front frame to earn a good small overlap rating and a Top Safety Pick award but didn't do the same for the extended cab," according to the Institute's chief research officer David Zuby. "That shortchanges buyers who might pick the extended cab thinking it offers the same protection in this type of crash as the crew cab.