2007 Ford Focus , 4 Door, Only 19,000 Original Miles Clean Car Fax ! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Transit Connect Wagon

The last time I tested a Ford Transit Connect, I needed to drive a group of friends to Boyne, MI, for a long weekend of skiing, snowboarding, and shenanigans. At roughly three hours, the trip is just long enough that my friends asked for something comfortable. A Range Rover would've been ideal. Perhaps a Mercedes-Benz GL or Cadillac Escalade. But no, I chose Transit Connect, to put Ford's small van formula to the test. The tiny van was near the end of its lifecycle in 2012, having debuted in Europe in 2003. Its age was reflected in its loud, underpowered, inefficient engine; noisy, harsh ride; and uncomfortable seats. It was so uncomfortable that we had to stop every hour just to stretch our legs. I didn't have such elaborate plans when this 2015 Transit Connect Wagon arrived in my driveway. But after a week behind the wheel, I can tell that road tripping in this van would be a far, far better experience. The most obvious change for the second-generation model is the styling. It's much better looking than the old TC, looking like the high-roofed spawn of a Focus and Escape. There are a few anomalies, though. First, note the word "Wagon" – that implies passenger van, while the cargo/work-minded Transit Connect is called "Van." Next, this Titanium model is only available on the longer-wheelbase, three-row Wagon. With the LWB configuration, the only tailgate option is a single-piece, lift-up hatch. If you want barn-style doors, get cozy with the short-wheelbase, two-row Transit Connect XLT. Regardless of body style, the Transit Connect Wagon's best styling feature is its enormous greenhouse that guarantees excellent visibility from any angle. The interior adopts a dash layout similar to the Focus. The heated leather seats – standard on the Titanium – are nice enough, but better still is that the chairs are actually comfortable now. The plastics on the dash and doors are still hard and scratchy, but fit and finish is solid. And with major contact points and switchgear that have been pilfered from other Ford products, including the steering wheel, the occasional bad bits in the cabin are easy enough to ignore. With room for three folks in the second row and two more in the back, the Transit Connect Wagon fills a role that is more utilitarian and spartan, but not much less versatile than traditional minivans. The middle row seats feature stadium-style raised seating, and both rows can slide forward and back or fold.

2016 Ford F-150 gets propane, CNG conversions

It's a complete mystery if a hybrid Ford F-150 will ever see showrooms, but for buyers looking for an alternative fueling method, Ford has an option ready. For the 2016 model year, the Blue Oval is offering a kit that converts the pickup's 5.0-liter V8 to run on compressed natural gas or propane. The package costs $315 and adds improved valves and valve seats to work with the gaseous fuels. From there, the F-150s go to an upfitter to install the actual fuel tanks, lines, and injectors. Ford estimates this costs $7,500 to $9,500, depending on how much CNG a buyer wants to carry. After the conversion, the tow rating remains the same as running on gasoline, and payload is only reduced by the weight of the system. Ford offered a CNG option on the last-gen F-150's 3.7-liter V6, and sales beat the automaker's forecasts. With the greater grunt available from the V8, the company is expecting the conversion to be even more popular on the new pickups. In times of high fuel prices, CNG models have been a way for fleets to reduce their costs. According to Ford, the average price of natural gas nationwide is $2.11, but it's as low as $1 in some areas. The US Energy Information Administration lists the average for regular gas at $2.57 and diesel at $2.81. Chevrolet and GMC also offer a CNG conversion option on some of their heavy-duty trucks, and Ram does, as well. 2016 F-150 WITH CLASS-EXCLUSIVE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS, PROPANE CAPABILITY GROWS FORD'S ALTERNATIVE FUEL LEADERSHIP Responding to customer requests, 2016 Ford F-150 with the 5.0-liter V8 engine will offer a gaseous-fuel prep option, making it the only light-duty pickup capable of running on compressed natural gas or propane Ford has sold more than 57,000 vehicles prepped to run on clean, low-cost compressed natural gas and propane – seven times more than all other major U.S. automakers combined – since 2009 Ford has the broadest portfolio of natural gas and propane offerings, including 2016 F-150 and Super Duty trucks, and Transit and Transit Connect vans and wagons Ford Qualified Vehicle Modifiers offer a wide variety of CNG options to help customers find the best, most cost-effective solution to their diverse operating needs Ford, America's truck leader, will offer the 2016 F-150 with an available gaseous-fuel prep package that enables 5.0-liter V8-powered models to run on clean, low-cost compressed natural gas or propane, making Ford the only manufacturer of a CNG/propane-capable half-ton pickup.

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.