2009 Ford Fusion Se Sunroof Cruise Ctl Alloys 55k Miles Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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:

Ford recalls 9,900 vehicles across two campaigns

Ford is recalling a total of 9,885 vehicles in two campaigns. The Basics: In one recall, Ford will recall 9,017 examples of the 2013 Escape with build dates from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2013, and the 2013-2014 Focus ST produced between May 3, 2012, and October 14, 2013. The Problem: Splices in the engine wiring harness might not have enough compression, and this can cause the manifold absolute pressure sensor to send incorrect signals to the powertrain control module. This issue could cause the engine to stall. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: Dealers will replace the current crimped splices with new splices, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If You Own One: The repair campaign will begin on January 4, 2016. More Information: Ford recalled the 2013 Escape and Focus ST in August 2014 for the same problem, and this is an expansion of that campaign, according to company spokesperson John Cangany to Autoblog. The Basics: In the smaller of the two campaigns, Ford will recall 868 examples of the 2013 Explorer, Explorer Police Utility, Taurus, Taurus Police Interceptor, Flex, Lincoln MKS, and MKT. The Problem: The fuel delivery module can crack, which would cause a fuel leak. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: Dealers will replace the fuel delivery module. If You Own One: Owners should receive notice soon because NHTSA's report says the recall begins in December. More Information: According to Cangany, this recall is an expansion of a campaign from 2013 for these vehicles. RECALL Subject : Engine Wiring Splices may cause Stall Report Receipt Date: DEC 02, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V813000 Component(s): ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Potential Number of Units Affected: 9,017 All Products Associated with this Recall Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD ESCAPE 2013 FORD FOCUS 2013-2014 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2013 Escape vehicles manufactured January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2013, and 2013-2014 Focus ST vehicles manufactured May 03, 2012, to October 14, 2013. Insufficient compression in the engine wiring harness splices to the Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) sensor may provide incorrect signals to the powertrain control module (PCM). CONSEQUENCE: The incorrect signals could cause the vehicle to hesitate or the engine to stall, increasing the risk of a crash.

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).