2000 Ford Explorer Xl 4wd 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

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

Ford earnings take a dive on investment, slowing sales; workers get $6,900 in profit sharing

Ford Motor Company's pre-tax profits for 2014 took a beating, falling to $6.3 billion, a $2.3-billion drop from 2013, while overall revenues fell from $139.4 billion to $135.8 billion. Net income for 2014, meanwhile, plunged 56 percent, from $7.18 billion to $3.19 billion. Yeah, those aren't great numbers. While Ford's figures are largely down across the board, some of the weaker numbers aren't too difficult to explain away. The company launched 24 vehicles across the globe in 2014, including some of its biggest and most important volume models, like the 2015 F-150, as well as iconic offerings like the new Mustang. The result of this is both increased investment as well as a drop in total sales – US market numbers were down 164,000 units compared to 2013. Recall claims and high warranty costs also did a number on the Blue Oval. "2014 was a solid yet challenging year for Ford - with our investments and a record number of new products launched around the world positioning us for strong growth this year and beyond," Ford CEO Mark Fields said in a statement. Ford's 50,180 UAW workers in the United States will receive profit-sharing checks of $6,900. In some markets, Ford's fortunes were impacted by outside factors. Europe, for example, recorded more sales (up 70,000 units) and higher revenues (up $2.2 billion), but still reported a $443-million pre-tax loss. Blame was placed on the crumbling Russian economy, which has suffered from sanctions and slumping oil prices. Despite its troubles last year, the company still seems bullish on 2015. Ford's pre-tax outlook remains unchanged, as the company expects to make anywhere from $8.5 to $9.5 billion on the back of higher revenue from the company's automotive operations. We expect strong growth and improved financial performance in 2015 driven by our investments in new products and capacity," Ford CFO Bob Shanks said of the company's future.