Lariat Fx4 6.0l V8 4x4 Pioneer Navigation Bluetooth Sirius Dvd Ipod Xd Wheels on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This Or That: Fiat 500 Abarth vs. Ford Fiesta ST [w/poll]

They're pretty darn similar. And yet our views are oh so different.
If you guys could read the transcripts of our editors' chat room, you'd know that we're a pretty argumentative bunch. It's always good-spirited stuff (well, usually), but when we're not obsessively covering this or that, we're usually fighting about one car being better than another. We're all enthusiasts here, and our automotive tastes run the gamut from the weird and unusual to the decidedly mainstream - we all feel strongly about specific cars in a given segment. While it usually makes for good conversation, if we're passionate enough, it can turn into a tomato-throwing showdown.

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.

Ford talking unibody Ranger replacement

Now here's some welcome news. Car and Driver reports Ford is seriously mulling a replacement for the recently deceased Ranger, but the successor to the compact pickup's throne may not look anything like what we've seen from the nameplate in the past.
While speaking at the 2013 Chicago Auto Show, Doug Scott, marketing manager for Ford Trucks, said there's still a market for a smaller pickup, but that buyers expect to see a larger differentiation between the smaller utility vehicles and their full size counterparts in price, capability and fuel economy.
According to Scott, that means a vehicle with a payload capacity of around 1,000 pounds paired with a towing capacity of 3,000 pounds and "a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption." But the biggest piece of that recipe is the price tag, and Scott says to keep the MSRP far enough away from the already cheap F-150, the answer could come in the form of a unibody design. Scott says target customers in this market don't care whether the truck has a traditional frame or not, so long as it's tough enough to do the job and has the capability they need.