2024 Ford Ranger Xlt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hot-selling Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator get production boost

Ford is investing an additional $25 million in its Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville to increase by 25 percent production of the hot-selling and all-new Lincoln Navigator and Ford Expedition SUVs. The investment adds to $900 million in previously announced spending at the plant, which also builds F-Series Super-Duty pickups and employs 8,400 workers. Assembly-line workers are putting in overtime and working voluntary weekend shifts to keep up with demand. The new investment will cover upgrades to the assembly line but does not involve further hiring, Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker says. The popularity of the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator is a bright spot as Ford stock has been battered by Wall Street amid concerns concerns about the automaker's future vision and slowness to detect trends. Ford says the investment is an example of its bid to improve "operational fitness," one of CEO Jim Hackett's common refrains. Ford says Navigator retail sales more than doubled in January, and Navigators are spending an average of just seven days on Lincoln dealership lots as customers trade in vehicles including Land Rovers and Mercedes-Benz. Nearly 85 percent of buyers are opting for high-end Black Label and Reserve trim packages, contributing to an average transaction price increase of more than $21,000 in January compared to a year ago. The 2018 Navigator won the North American Truck of the Year award and also topped a Detroit News poll of public favorites at last month's Detroit Auto Show. Sales of the Expedition, meanwhile, were up almost 57 percent last month as the full-size SUVs also spent an average of just a week on dealer lots. Platinum trim models represented 29 percent of sales, pushing transaction price increases up $7,800. Ford gave the 2018 Expedition an all-aluminum body to save mass in its first significant redesign since 2007. The plant last year got nearly 400 new robots, mainly in the body shop, to help increase line speed, and Ford added a robot lab where employees can test software tweaks or troubleshoot issues away from the factory floor. The Louisville plant also benefits from extensive new data analytics, with seven big-screen monitors providing minute-by-minute updates showing progress against hourly targets or alerting workers to pending parts shortages. A huge spare-parts "vending machine" lets workers more quickly locate needed parts and keep inventory at necessary levels.

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.