Ford Thunderbird All Power Options on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

U.S. auto sales in April expected to drop despite big discounts

DETROIT — U.S. auto sales in April likely fell nearly 8 percent from the same month in 2017 despite big discounts for consumers, industry consultants J.D. Power and LMC Automotive said on Thursday. For much of the past two years, the discounts offered by automakers have remained at levels that industry analysts say are unsustainable and unhealthy in the long term. April U.S. new vehicle sales will likely be about 1.31 million units, down from 1.42 million units a year earlier, the consultancies said. The forecast was based on the first 17 selling days of April. Automakers, including Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, will release April U.S. sales results on May 1. Earlier this month, No. 1 U.S. automaker General Motors said it will stop reporting monthly U.S. sales because the 30-day snapshot does not accurately reflect the market. GM will instead issue quarterly sales reports. U.S. new vehicle sales fell 2 percent in 2017 to 17.23 million units after hitting a record high in 2016. Sales are expected to drop further in 2018 as interest rates rise and more late-model used cars return to dealer lots to compete with new ones. LMC expects full-year 2018 U.S. new vehicle sales to come in at around 17 million units. "Uncertainty and unfavorable factors appear to be mounting for autos, including a volatile stock market, rising interest rates, rising oil prices and potential trade roadblocks," Jeff Schuster, LMC's head of global vehicle forecasts, said in a statement. The seasonally adjusted annualized rate of sales for April will be 16.6 million vehicles, down more than 2 percent from 17 million units in April 2017, the consultancies said. Retail sales to consumers, excluding lower-margin fleet sales to rental agencies, businesses and government, were set to decline about 9 percent in April. The level of consumer discounts, which can erode profit margins and undercut resale values, "remains the larger concern," the consultancies said. The average discount was $3,698, up $187 from April 2017. Discounts on trucks and SUVs were up $426, but down $226 on passenger cars. Reporting by Nick CareyRelated Video: Image Credit: Reuters Earnings/Financials Chrysler Ford GM JD Power

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.