2014 Ford Transit Connect Titanium on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford, Ram in heavy-duty towing spat

Every pickup truck commercial has the brand trying to convince us that its model is the biggest, brawniest vehicle on the block. But Ford and Ram appear ready to really throw down the gauntlet and scrap over the towing figures for their heavy-duty models, and it could potentially end up in court.
The issue revolves around what it means to be best in class. Ford claims that its 2015 F-450 (pictured above) has a max tow rating of 31,200 pounds, compared to 30,000 pounds for the Ram 3500 (right). However, both companies market these heavy haulers as having the top towing in their class. According to Automotive News, Ford is threatening legal action if Ram doesn't back down.
The situation isn't as simple as just comparing the numbers, though. First, the two companies calculate their towing capacities differently. Ram adheres to the SAE J2807 rating, while Ford uses its own internal system. Although, as the company introduces new models, they are certified using the SAE standard. "When an all-new F-Series Super Duty is introduced, it also will use SAE J2807," said Ford to Autoblog in an emailed statement.

New Ford Escape spied inside and out

For the 2016 model year, the Ford Escape receives the Blue Oval's latest Sync 3 infotainment system and some minor tweaks to the color and trim options. Based on these new spy shots, it would appear that the crossover is due for some much bigger changes not too far into the future, as well. The thorough refresh isn't just an exterior styling update, either. Ford's designers are giving the future Escape a front end that's a bit more in the style of the latest Edge, at least based on these shots. Peek behind the mesh obscuring the grille, and the styling there now appears to have a hexagonal shape with horizontal slats and a smaller, lower intake. At the same time, the headlights are narrower and come to a sharper point as they wrap around the fender. The heavy camouflage makes the changes at the back harder to spot, although the taillights seem subtly tweaked with a similar overall shape but a clear stripe cutting through the center. The Escape also seems to be receiving a completely different center stack inside, but the area is still well concealed. The gearshift moves down between the seats, and that allows physical controls for the radio and HVAC to take that real estate. It's possible that the infotainment screen might pop up from the mesh-covered area you can see at the top of the interior photos. Take a look through the gallery for some detailed shots of Ford's camouflaged crossover.

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.