2013 Ford F-250 King Ranch Crew 4x4 Diesel Sunroof Nav! Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Quitting Mexico factory helps bring down Ford earnings $200 million in 2016

Ford released its 2016 earnings report this morning, and despite a fourth quarter net loss it proved to be the automaker's second most successful year ever, following record breaking numbers in 2015. Losses for the year come from a number of sources, including accounting changes and a $200 million hit for backing out of the small-car factory in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Despite the loss, come March 9 about 56,000 UAW-represented employees will receive a $9,000 profit-sharing check. That, like most of Ford's other 2016 metrics, is slightly down from the year before, but it's still the second best profit-sharing payment ever. Total net income was $4.6 billion, down $2.8 billion from 2015. Total revenue for 2016 was $151.8 billion, up $2.2 billion. Ford's earnings report lists a global market share of 7.6 percent, down a tenth from 2015. Ford's European and Asia-Pacific markets posted their best and second best pre-tax profits respectively. The South American, Middle East, and African markets all took hits because of unstable economies and other external factors. Ford expects to have another down year in 2017 as it invests in new and emerging markets and focuses more on its mobility projects.Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Ford via Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Earnings/Financials Plants/Manufacturing UAW/Unions Ford Lincoln Mexico ford earnings

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost loses big power on 87 octane

The 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is a pretty potent package on paper. With 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, it boasts better performance numbers than the 3.7-liter V6, but with better fuel economy as an added benefit. However, if you're in the market for one of these boosted 'Stangs, you should probably keep in mind that it really prefers to gulp premium, 93-octane fuel. It can drink 87-octane swill in a pinch, but you're going to find significantly less power underfoot when pulling away. While it's not shocking that the ponies are dialed back with a lower grade of gasoline, an alleged page from a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang 6G purports to show just how much power is lost, though. According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque. In speaking with Autoblog, Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost: First Ride View 20 Photos News Source: Mustang 6GImage Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL, Ford, Mustang 6G Ford Technology Convertible Coupe Performance ecoboost ford mustang ecoboost

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.