93 Ford F350 Crew Cab Dually Low Miles, Extra Clean, 2wd Gas on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The 24 Hour War: Adam Carolla's new documentary brings the Ford-Ferrari battle back to life

Long before the GoPro or even videotape, races were filmed by guys standing next to the track with 16-millimeter cameras. The images kind of shook, they didn't always hold focus, and over the years all the color has faded out of the film. It all conspires to make the endurance racing battle between Ferrari and Ford in the 1960s seem like ancient history. What Adam Carolla and Nate Adams' new documentary The 24 Hour War does best is make that inter-corporate battle feel as if it happened yesterday. Yeah, if you're an obsessive you've likely seen most of the shaky-cam race footage used here before. But what you haven't seen are the interviews that frame the war and explain the egos and engineering behind the legends. It's not a perfect movie, but it's the sort of movie only fanatics could make. And it's easier to appreciate if you're a fanatic too. The first 25-or-so minutes of the documentary are taken up with histories of both Ford and Ferrari and an overview of how ridiculously deadly motorsports were in the Sixties and earlier. It's all interesting (if familiar) stuff, that could have been handled in about a third the time with some brutal editing. Still, the two protagonists in the story are well drawn: the racing-crazed Enzo Ferrari, who only builds road cars to stay solvent; and Henry Ford II, who after being thrown into the deep end of the Ford Motor Company management in 1943 at the age of 25, wasn't going to be humiliated after Ferrari pulled out of a deal to sell him the sports car maker. With one notable exception, the filmmakers were successful in rounding up practically everyone involved who is still alive for an interview. That includes Dan Gurney, Mario Andretti, Pete Brock, Bob Bondurant, Piero Ferrari, Mauro Forghieri, Carlo Tazzioli, and even Ralph Nader. There are good archival insights from the late Carroll Shelby. But where's A.J. Foyt? After all, he co-drove the stupendous Ford GT40 Mark IV with Dan Gurney to victory at Le Mans in 1967. The interviews make the movie worthwhile, but it cries out for more technical depth about the cars themselves. Yes, the GT40 was complex and engineered practically like a production car, but there's no mention of how the Lola Mk VI and Eric Broadley kicked off the development. There's only a superficial explanation of what made the American-built Mark IV such a leap forward.

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.

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.