2004 Ford Excursion Xlt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Recalls Nearly 435,000 Vehicles

Ford is recalling nearly 435,000 cars and SUVs to fix rusting frame parts or faulty seats. The biggest of the two recalls covers nearly 386,000 Ford Escapes from the 2001 through 2004 model years. Ford says the subframes can rust, allowing a control arm to separate and hamper steering control. Ford is aware of one crash but no injuries linked to the problem. The SUVs were originally sold or registered in 20 states and Washington, D.C., where salt is used to clear snow and ice from roads. Six Canadian provinces also are included. Dealers will install a reinforcement brace to fix the problem. The Escapes covered by the recall were built from Oct. 22, 1999 through Dec. 19, 2003 at the Kansas City Assembly plant, and from May 1, 2003 through Jan. 23, 2004 at the Ohio Assembly plant, Ford said in a statement issued Monday. They were originally sold or registered in Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Indiana, Michigan, New York, West Virginia and Washington, D.C. Also covered are Escapes sold or registered in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland & Labrador. The second recall covers 49,000 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, Ford Escape and C-MAX vehicles from 2013 and 2014. Dealers will replace seat back frames that weren't welded properly. No crashes or injuries have been reported from the problem, Ford said. Recalls Ford

Editors' Picks February 2021 | Ford F-150, Genesis GV80, Mazda CX-30 and more

If we’ve driven and reviewed it, thereÂ’s an Autoblog Rating for it. ItÂ’s been over two years since we launched a new rating system to help you evaluate cars at a glance. We tweaked and improved it along the way and quickly arrived at a consistent process for giving each and every car on sale today a fair score. Cars that are exemplary or stand out in their respective segments get EditorsÂ’ Pick status. Those are the ones weÂ’d recommend to our friends, family and anybody whoÂ’s curious and asks the question. Every car we rate gets a score from 1 to 10, making it easy for you to tell if itÂ’s a car worth pursuing and possibly purchasing. YouÂ’ll find the scores of previously-rated cars attached toward the top of our written reviews. For example, the Bronco SportÂ’s rating can be found here. The Acura TLXÂ’s rating is in this post, and the Nissan RogueÂ’s rating is right here. There are hundreds of examples to be found. The above examples make up the most natural ways to find the Autoblog rating when researching for your next car, but starting today, weÂ’re going to begin calling out each new set of Editors' Picks per month in their own breakout stories. This will put the newest and most recently refreshed cars on sale on a pedestal for you to see which ones are worth your while. WeÂ’ll typically rate anywhere between 5-10 new cars per month, so you can count on just a select few from those to make this list. Expect to see this recurring ratings post each month going forward, and read on for FebruaryÂ’s EditorsÂ’ Picks.   2021 Genesis GV80 2021 Genesis GV80 View 18 Photos Quick take: The stylish GV80 offers useful safety features, compelling design and sporty dynamics to push it near the top of the segment. Genesis takes risks with this aggressive crossover, and the result is a luxurious vehicle that is rewarding to drive. Score: 8.5 What it competes with: Lincoln Aviator, Volvo XC90, BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX Pros: Beautiful design, good road manners, awesome value Cons: Small third row and cargo space, less comfortable standard suspension  From the editors: Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore — “The GV80 is a hugely important vehicle for Genesis. It makes a style statement, has an elegant interior and is a compelling all-round execution. It looks like a Bentley, and I give Genesis props for taking some risks with the GV80 and largely pulling it all off.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.