Ford: F-450 King Ranch New Engine W/ Warranty Dele on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM, Ford, Honda winners in 'Car Wars' study as industry growth continues

General Motors' plans to aggressively refresh its product lineup will pay off in the next four years with strong market share and sales, according to an influential report released Tuesday. Ford, Honda, and FCA are all poised to show similar gains as the auto industry is expected to remain healthy through the rest of the decade. The Bank of America Merrill Lynch study, called Car Wars, analyzes automakers' future product plans for the next four model years. By 2020, 88 percent of GM's sales will come from newly launched products, which puts it slightly ahead of Ford's 86-percent estimate. Honda (85 percent) and FCA (84 percent) follow. The industry average is 81 percent. Toyota checks in just below the industry average at 79 percent, with Nissan trailing at 76 percent. Car Wars' premise is: automakers that continually launch new products are in a better position to grow sales and market share, while companies that roll out lightly updated models are vulnerable to shifting consumer tastes. Though Detroit and Honda grade out well in the study, many major automakers are clumped together, which means large market-share swings are less likely in the coming years. Bank of America Merrill Lynch predicts the industry will top out with 20 million sales in 2018 and then taper off, perhaps as much as 30 percent by 2026. Not surprisingly, trucks, sport utility vehicles and crossovers will be the key battlefield in the next few years, Car Wars says. FCA will launch a critical salvo in 2018 with a new Ram 1500, followed by new generations of the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra in 2019, and then Ford's F-150 for 2020, according to the study. Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy said the GM trucks could be pulled ahead even earlier to 2018, prompting Ford to respond. "This focus on crossovers and trucks is a great thing for the industry," Murphy said. Cars Wars looks at Korean (76 percent replacement rate) and European companies more vaguely (70 percent), but argues their slower product cadence and lineups with fewer trucks puts them in weaker positions than their competitors through 2020. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Silverado View 11 Photos Image Credit: Chevrolet Earnings/Financials Chrysler Fiat Ford GM Honda Nissan Toyota study FCA

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.

Consumer Reports: Ford Fusion fun but flawed; Mitsubishi i-MiEV slow, chintzy [w/videos]

Waiting for a Ford compliment from Consumer Reports these days is like waiting for a low-cost new product from Apple. So we weren't really expecting a glowing review of the 2013 Ford Fusion when CR got its hands on the car. The institute's crew bought three different versions of the Fusion (Hybrid, 1.6-liter EcoBoost and a Titanium with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost) to put through its barrage of tests, and while we aren't too surprised by some of the findings, they're still interesting nonetheless.
CR praises the Fusion for its "eye-catching" design and says that the sportier Titanium trim level is the best-handling midsize sedan they've ever tested, but that's about where the good news ends for Ford. The Fusion Hybrid also posted the best-ever fuel economy CR has recorded in a midsize sedan, but the only problem is that their number was 39 miles per gallon combined - far less than Ford's 47 mpg rating for city, highway and combined. As expected, CR also dinged the Fusion for its MyFord Touch, but some of the other gripes about the car include a cramped cabin and poor fit and finish.
Other Ford products tested this time around include the Focus Electric and C-Max Hybrid. Like the Fusion, CR's observed fuel economy of 37 mpg for the C-Max fell well short of Ford's advertised 47-mpg rating, and both cars were criticized for the use of MyFord Touch. CR notes that the Focus Electric's interior is also cramped, with the battery pack taking up a lot of cargo space.