2005 Ford Expedition Xlt Sport Utility 4-door 5.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford worker files for UAW dues refund, stirs right-to-work debate

Let's start with some history: Ford's Dearborn truck plant, part of the company's massive River Rouge complex, was the center of a strike in 1941 that led to Ford signing the first "closed shop" agreement in the industry. The agreement obliged every worker at the plant to be a dues-paying member of the United Auto Workers. In December 2012, however, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation making Michigan a right-to-work state, which outlawed closed shops. The new law gave workers the right to opt out of union membership and stop paying dues even if they were still covered by union activities like collective bargaining. For employees at the Dearborn plant, the right-to-work clauses take effect at the end of their current contract in 2015.
As a tool-and-die maker at Ford's Dearborn plant for 16 years, Todd Lemire pays dues to the UAW - about two hours' salary per month. However, he's been unhappy with the UAW's support of the Democratic party, and not wanting to wait until next year to be out of the UAW entirely he invoked his Beck Rights, which state that a non-member of a union does not have to pay dues to support non-core activities, such as political spending. But Lemire wasn't happy that Ford still subtracted the total amount of dues, with the UAW reimbursing the difference, so he filed suit with the National Labor Relations Board, feeling that the workaround violates his rights.
Lemire's case is just a week old, so it could be a while before a resolution. Yet, as September 15, 2015 draws near and the right-to-work laws take full effect for Michigan workers - and others wonder whether it could help revitalize the state's manufacturing base - a case like this adds more fuel to the discussion.

Trump wants a trade deal, but South Korea doesn't want US cars

SEOUL - US auto imports from the likes of General Motors and Ford must become more chic, affordable or fuel-efficient to reap the rewards of President Donald Trump's attempts to renegotiate a trade deal with key ally South Korea, officials and industry experts in Seoul say. Meeting South Korean President Moon Jae-in last week in Washington, Trump said the United States would do more to address trade imbalances with South Korea and create "a fair shake" to sell more cars there, the world's 11th largest auto market. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." While imports from automakers including Ford, Chrysler and GM more than doubled last year largely thanks to free trade deal which took effect in 2012, sales account for just 1 percent of a market dominated by more affordable models from local giants Hyundai and affiliate Kia. Imports make up just 15 percent of the overall Korean auto market, and are mainly more luxurious models from German automakers BMW and Daimler AG's Mercedes-Benz, which also benefit from a trade deal with the European Union. "Addressing non-tariff barriers would not fundamentally raise the competitiveness of US cars," a senior Korean government official told Reuters, declining to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." TASTE BARRIER In Korea, US imports are seen as lagging German brands in brand image, sophistication and fuel economy, industry experts say. US imports do have a competitive advantage in electric cars: Tesla Motors' electric vehicles are seen as both environmentally friendly and trendy, while GM has launched a long-range Bolt EV. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had cited a quota in the current trade deal as an obstacle to boosting imports. The quota allows US automakers to bring in each year 25,000 vehicles that meet US, not necessarily Korean, safety standards. Should GM, for example, decide to bring in more than its quota of one model - the Impala sedans - it would cost up to $75 million to modify the cars to meet Korean safety standards, the company told its local labor union. Asked about non-tariff barriers, a spokesman at GM's Korean unit said removing them could expand the range of models the company can bring in from the United States. No US company, however, has yet to make full use of the quota, industry data shows.

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.