1990 Ford F-150 Xlt Lariat on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.

Trucks, SUVs — and Camry — shine in mixed U.S. January vehicle sales

DETROIT — Automakers posted mixed U.S. new vehicle sales data for January, with American consumers continuing to abandon passenger cars for the larger pickup trucks, SUVs and crossover models that manufacturers also love because they are far more profitable. Total industry auto sales for the month rose 1 percent versus January 2016. According to Autodata Corp, which tracks industry sales, the seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) of U.S. car and light truck sales in January fell to 17.12 million units from 17.44 million a year earlier. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a January SAAR of 17.2 million units. U.S. auto industry sales fell 2 percent in 2017 to 17.23 million vehicles after hitting a record high in 2016 and are expected to drop further in 2018 despite a solid economy. Interest rates are rising and around 4 million late-model used cars will return to dealer lots this year to compete with more expensive new ones. Automakers have used consumer discounts to boost sales, a growing concern for observers who say this undermines resale values and profits. Discounts declined in January, but remained above 10 percent of manufacturers' recommended prices. ""I think the industry has accepted that (sales) volumes will fall somewhat in 2018 ... and I don't think the industry is going to go over the cliff with insane incentives," Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc, told Reuters after his company, the largest U.S. auto retail chain, posted a higher quarterly net profit. Mark Wakefield, head of the North American automotive practice for consultancy AlixPartners, had a gloomier perspective. The industry's less-than-stellar sales performance for January showed "we are now past the peak," he said. "Automakers are now selling the deal instead of the vehicle," he said. "That's a tough spot to be in because that treadmill is hard to get off once you're on it." General Motors January sales rose 1.3 percent, driven by a 16 percent rise in fleet sales. Sales to consumers fell 2.4 percent. GM posted strong gains for models such as the Silverado pickup truck and Equinox crossover model, while its passenger cars continued to struggle. Ford The Blue Oval posted a 6.6 percent sales decline for January, with retail sales down 4.3 percent. Sales of Ford's F-Series pickup trucks - America's best-selling vehicle brand for decades — rose 1.6 percent. Passenger cars were down more than 23 percent.

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).