Ford Crew Cab Amarillo 4x4 Powerstroke Diesel Custom Lift Wheels Tires Leather on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford and GM link bonus checks to quality scores

The poor first quarter earnings of Ford and General Motors are having an effect all the way up the food chain. Both automakers struggled with recalls in the first three months of the year, and, according to The Detroit News, they have responded by increasing the percentage of bonuses tied to vehicle quality for salaried workers, including top executives.
GM announced that 25 percent of bonuses (up from 10 percent) for all salaried workers would be tied to its vehicle quality standards. The automaker revealed in its financial report that it spent $1.3 billion on recall-related repairs in the first quarter, and net income was down 86 percent.
Ford also increased the quality proportion of bonuses for about 26,000 salaried workers all the way up to CEO Alan Mulally from 10 percent to 20 percent. The company announced in its report that the amount paid out in warranty and recall claims was about $400 million higher than expected in the first quarter. Its net income fell 39 percent from the previous year. "The change reflects how critical quality is to our overall business," said spokesperson Todd Nissen speaking to Autoblog.

2016 Ford Mustang getting California Special treatment

The sixth-generation Mustang hasn't even been around for a full year, but Ford is already prepping a couple of tweaks for 2016. We've now learned that there will be a California Special version, and if that name sounds familiar, it's because Ford has a long history of doing the GT/CS treatment on its 'Stangs. We don't have anything to go on right now, save the image you see here. But previous California Special versions were limited to things like new wheels, spoilers, badges, and some paint options, so we aren't expecting anything too drastic. It's also unclear if Ford will offer the new GT/CS on both the coupe and convertible, or if it'll just stick to the hardtop. We'll get the full details on Monday, May 11 – that's when Ford will reveal everything it's done for the 2016 Mustang lineup. Stay tuned.

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.