2011 Ford Mustang 3.7 Mint!!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost to hit 45 mpg for $16,445*

When Ford first announced its plan to put the 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder engine under the hood of the 2014 Fiesta, it promised hybrid-like fuel economy without a hybrid-like premium. We're still waiting for official specs on this engine, but thanks to the EPA's fueleconomy.gov website and Ford's retail site, we now know what customers can expect in terms of both fuel economy and price.
All along, Ford has said that it expects the 1.0-liter EcoBoost to get more than 40 miles per gallon on the highway, and now the EPA backs this up with official ratings of 32 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. These numbers are an increase of two mpg city and four mpg hwy compared to the current fuel-sipping Fiesta (the 1.6 SFE), and it also beats other three-cylinder cars for highway mileage like the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage (44 mpg highway) and 2014 Smart Fortwo (38 mpg highway); the Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost is lower than both three-pot rivals, though, in city fuel economy with the Mitsubishi getting 37 mpg city and the Smart rated at 34 mpg city. This model handily beats high-volume small cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Chevy Spark in both city and highway numbers.
As for pricing, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is offered on both the sedan and hatchback as a $995 option called the SE Manual EcoBoost package, which is aptly named since it's only offered on SE trim-level Fiestas equipped with a manual transmission. Along with the engine, the package also comes with 15-inch steel wheels, regenerative brakes and a decklid spoiler on the sedan. This means the four-door Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost will start at $16,445*, or $17,045* for the hatchback (*not including $795 for destination).

Buyers ditching expensive European sedans to buy expensive American trucks

The New York Times ended the automotive week with a story that adds numbers and context to a range of other stories, from the crossover craze to the increasing median price of a new car to ever more grandiose pickup trucks. The NYT piece reveals that the shift to larger vehicles isn't merely about the average U.S. buyer swapping the midsize sedan for a Ford Edge. Luxury buyers are migrating from plush sedans to plush SUVs and trucks that creep close to six-figure prices, and the Detroit Three are running Treasury presses because of it. From 2013 to 2017, the truck category — everything from pickups to minivans — climbed from 30 percent of the market to 41 percent. In January of this year, trucks claimed 66 percent of new vehicle sales. At the milk-and-honey end of profits, GMC alone accounted for 11.3 percent of all vehicle sales over $60,000, not just trucks. That puts the luxury truck maker behind Mercedes-Benz and Ford, The Blue Oval's feasting on Lariat, King Ranch and Raptor versions of the F-150, which make up more than half of that pickup's sales, putting it ahead of Chevrolet, Porsche and Lexus on the high-dollar sales list. The average transaction price of a GMC in Denali trim last year was $56,000; it's easy to see why, when one dealer told the NYT he just swapped a 2012 BMW 550i for a $71,000 GMC Sierra Denali. That truck starts at $52,900. The NYT started its story with a buyer who took home a Ford Raptor instead of an Audi A6, and optioned that $50,020 Ford Raptor close to $80,000. Over at Lincoln, the new $72,055 Navigator — the one so popular that Ford will increase production — crossed hands for an average sale price of $77,000 in January. And a Jeep dealer told the NYT that the two $93,000 Trackhawks he had on his lot "won't be here more than a few weeks." While trucks head up in sales volume and price, cars are headed so viciously in the opposite direction that "the Detroit Three and even some foreign manufacturers acknowledge they are now losing money on many of the cars they sell." So ... get ready for a lot more crossovers and trucks. Related Video: Find out what vehicle is right for you. Give our Car Finder tool a try.

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.