2002 Ford F350 Crew Cab Cab & Chassis Dual Rear Wheel Xlt 4x4 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.

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.

Would you pay $17 a month to give your older Ford connectivity?

When it was first introduced in 2007, there was nothing like the original Ford Sync system, since it allowed car owners to connect and use a portable device better than anything that came before it. And because it was a brought-in/tethered and software-based system, Sync leveraged a device's connectivity and was easily updated. It took competitors awhile to catch up: Toyota Entune wasn't available until 2011, and Chevy MyLink didn't roll out until 2012. But now Ford is the one playing catchup since it stuck with the brought-in strategy while most other automakers were quicker to add connectivity via an embedded cellular modem. Ford initially installed 2G/3G modems in its small fleet of electric and plug-in electric vehicles starting in 2012 so that owners could keep tabs on charging. Embedded connectivity came to Lincoln in 2014, and Ford began adding onboard 4G LTE via Sync Connect to select cars starting with the Escape in 2015. To get more cars connected more quickly, last week the automaker rolled out its FordPass SmartLink solution that plugs into the OBD port of 2010 to 2017 model year vehicles. This lets owners retroactively get onboard Wi-Fi, set up a "geo-fence" to keep tabs on a car's location, receive vehicle health reports and allows remote engine starting and door locking/unlocking using a smartphone app, among other features. But to connect older Ford vehicles will cost owners $16.99 a month for two years, not including installation. Ford throws in 1 GB of data or a 30-day trial, whichever comes first, after which owners have to add the vehicle to their Verizon shared data plan, which supplies connectivity for SmartLink, or establish a new account. (Disclosure: Autoblog is owned by Verizon.) By comparison, GM's 4G LTE data plans start at $10 a month for 200 MB and goes up to $30 for 3 GB, and owners can also add a car to an AT&T shared-data plan. But OnStar doesn't have a separate monthly subscription for the embedded modem or an installation charge, and standard features via the RemoteLink Mobile App are free for the first five years of ownership. FCA's Uconnect Access service also uses an embedded modem to provide similar telematics features for $20 per month following a free one-year trial, while a la carte in-car Wi-Fi is offered for $10 per day, $20 per week or $35 per month.