2010 Ford Transit Connect,worktruck. Bins on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford nets $924M in first quarter

Where General Motors' first-quarter 2015 financials showed growth in many major metrics, Ford's newly released numbers had falling figures in most of the vital categories. The automaker's Q1 revenue shrank to $33.9 billion, down $2 billion, and net income fell to $924 million, a $65-million drop. However, pre-tax profits increased slightly to $1.4 billion, $24 million more than in the same period in 2014, and operating margin rose to 3.6 percent, up 0.2 percent. Despite the less-than-stellar numbers, the Blue Oval thinks 2015 should be positive for the company. "The first quarter was a good start to a year in which our results will grow progressively stronger as the new products we have been launching start to pay off," CEO Mark Fields said in the financial announcement. The automaker has 15 vehicles to launch globally this year, and only three of them are already out. By the end of 2015, Ford predicts pre-tax profits of between $8.5 billion and $9.5 billion. In terms of vehicle sales, Ford slipped by 21,000 to a total of 1.568 million worldwide in the first quarter. North American sales dropped to 678,000, which was 39,000 less than last year, and pre-tax profits fell to $1.34 billion, a $160-million fall. The company explained the reductions on this continent as linked to the launches of the latest F-150 and Edge. In other major markets, European wholesales grew to 376,000 vehicles, a 9,000-car boost from last year. Pre-tax results there increased by $9 million, but the area still showed an overall loss of $185 million. In the Asia Pacific region, Ford moved 16,000 more units than in Q1 2014 to reach 366,000. However, due in part to preparing for new vehicles, the company only made $103 million there, a $188-million drop. The automaker released all of these figures as part of a PDF, which you can download here. Related Video:

GM's Reuss predicts 2016 Chevy Camaro will outperform Ford Mustang in every way

We aren't going to be seeing the next-generation Chevrolet Camaro until next month. But even though we know when we're going to see the new muscle car, it's totally unclear whether Chevy will dole out technical details. That means we can't answer the latest version of the age-old question: Camaro or Ford Mustang? Not surprisingly, General Motors North America President Mark Reuss has already stated his position, saying he was "very confident" that the sixth-generation Camaro will be faster, more agile and more efficient than the Ford. Reuss made his comments after saying he drove the new Camaro back-to-back with the Mustang the week prior. Reuss' statement came in a conversation with Fox News about the 2016 Camaro where he elaborated on the car's weight shedding and how it fit into GM's strategy on other new models. "There are some really cool things in the Camaro, that are quite different than the Malibu, [and] CT6," Reuss told Fox. As we reported previously, the Camaro will shed some 200 pounds by switching to aluminum and other lightweight composites for some of its components. With May 16 just over a month away, here's hoping Reuss decides to loose some other details on the next Camaro ahead of its debut. Related Video:

Malcolm Gladwell reflects on engineering, recalls, and compromise

Journalist Malcolm Gladwell has made a career taking on big, complicated topics and humanizing them to make the unwieldy understandable. He has already done this in bestsellers like The Tipping Point and Outliers, and now he has brought the same approach to automotive recalls in a long piece for The New Yorker. The article titled The Engineer's Lament is framed around an interview with the former head of Ford's recall office about the famous Ford Pinto campaign where the position of the compact's fuel tank could cause it to explode in rear-end collisions. Plus, there are detours into Toyota's unintended acceleration cases and the General Motors ignition switch problem. While all the history is illuminating, the heart of the story comes from an examination at the thought process of engineers, and how their thinking differs from other professions. Gladwell comes off as sympathetic to auto engineers in this piece. While he admits that they often approach problems in a sterile way, the writer doesn't try point that out as a failing. It's merely a fact to be understood. The story itself is quite lengthy, but well worth a read if you have the time for an insiders view into how these recalls are assessed on the inside.