2003 Ford Focus Ztw Wagon Dohc on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Entry-level F-150 now offers SuperCrew, Sport Package

Ford has made a few notable tweaks to the lower end of its F-150 lineup, giving customers a more affordable version of the four-door SuperCrew body style. The popular SuperCrew could previously only be had on XLT models and above, but Ford has announced that 2014 F-150s with the base STX trim can get the more versatile body.
The STX SuperCrew brings the price of a four-door F-150 down from $34,525 to $33,145. Like the XLT SuperCrew, the STX will be available with the choice of a 5.5- or 6.5-foot bed, while a 5.0-liter V8 can replace the base 3.7-liter V6 for $4,425. Ford has not released pricing on the different bed lengths yet, but opting for the 6.5-foot bed on the XLT raises the price $1,240 and forces buyers into the 5.0-liter V8. We'd expect a similar arrangement on the STX.
The other big news for fans of affordable pickups is the addition of an STX Sport Package on the base-level truck. It adds 20-inch wheels, black exterior accents, black-and-gray cloth seats and decals on the truck's box. The Sport Package is available on all three of the STX's body styles, with Ford listing the price as $980 with current discounts.

Ford running short of F-150 frames

Like most any automaker, Ford is eager to build as many F-150 pickups as it can sell. And considering that the truck has long stood as the top selling vehicle in the United States, that means building (and selling) a lot of them. Further, Ford reports that its factories are finally fully up to speed and ready to build as many F-150s as dealers can sell. Unfortunately another factor is reportedly preventing the new aluminum-bodied pickup from reaching its potential. According to Automotive News and as we've heard before, the Blue Oval automaker has had trouble getting its hands on as many frames as it needs. Though Ford would not confirm the shortage itself, AN cites union sources in reporting that the Metalsa plant in Kentucky, which produces the new F-150's frame for Ford, has been unable to meet the demand for more such frames. "Whenever you have launches, you have issues that you have to deal with in the supply base," is all Ford CFO Bob Shanks would admit. "We're always working closely with suppliers if there's an issue to sort it out. If that were the case, that's what we'd be doing." The reported supply shortage could be why plans for overtime production are reportedly being canceled at both the plants in Kansas City and Dearborn where the F-150s are assembled, despite reaching or nearing full capacity. The shortage could also help explain why, according to AN, sales of the F-Series in the United States fell nearly 10 percent last month, while the rest of the pickup market rose 17 percent. Related Video:

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.