2006 Ford F 350 Supercab '1 Owner' Powerstroke Diesel on 2040-cars

Auto blog

New 2020 Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator recalled for minor safety issues

Ford has announced a small recall on 2020 Explorers and 2020 Lincoln Aviators. Select units might be missing a manual park release cover, while others might have instrument clusters stuck in Factory Mode. The recall affects 14,135 SUVs in total.  While a vehicle is in production in a manufacturing facility, Ford might put them in what is known as Factory Mode to help reduce battery drain. Affecting the instrument cluster, this mode disables warning alerts, warning chimes, and does not show the PRNDL gear selector display. Ford says one vehicle was in an accident at a production facility as a result of the issue, but nobody was injured.  Separately, Ford found that some of these Explorers and Aviators might be lacking a manual park release cover. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require a manual park release cover that is only removable with a tool. Without the cover, there is a very minor chance the manual park release could be accidentally actuated, which could allow the vehicle to move on its own.  The recalls affect 13,896 vehicles in the U.S. and 239 in Canada. The Explorers were built between March 27, 2019, and July 24, 2019. The Aviators were built between April 10, 2019, and July 24, 2019. Owners can use Ford's recall number 19C06, and if affected, can take their vehicles in for fixes.

2013 North American Car and Truck/Utility of the Year finalists announced [w/poll]

2012 is almost in the books and automakers are spending December gearing up for the 2013 auto show season, which tips off next month at the Detroit Auto Show. Traditionally, the latter opens up with the announcement of the North American Car and Truck/Utility of the Year awards, and this year figures to be no different.
But up until this moment, we didn't know which six vehicles would be parked ahead of the stage as finalists, with executives and engineers waiting for the winners to be disclosed. Whittled down from October's "short list" of nominees (11 cars and 10 truck/utility vehicles), the finalists are as follows:
2013 North American Car of the Year:

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.