2006 Freestar Sel on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should reflective paint earn automakers EPA credits?

No matter where you look around the world, governments are cracking down on vehicle emissions and aiming for higher fuel economy standards. Generally, automakers are pushing back against the increased regulation, and in the US, General Motors, Ford, and FCA US are looking for new compromises. The Big Three want to the EPA to grant them retroactive emissions credits for using tech that they claim reduces CO2 but not on the government agency's on-road testing. Among these technologies are things like reflective paint and glass, LED lights, ventilated seats, stop/start, and more efficient air conditioning compressors. Starting with the 2014 model year, the automakers can receive credits for a few grams per mile reductions on models with some of these solutions, according to Automotive News. However, the companies are also petitioning the EPA to make the credits apply to earlier vehicles with them, as well. The emissions advantages for systems like stop/start and less polluting AC refrigerants seem fairly obvious. For reflective paint and glass, the belief is that keeping a vehicle interior cooler should mean a lower need for air conditioning and therefore a decrease in CO2. Margo Oge, the former boss of the EPA's Office of Transportation Air Quality, told Automotive News these credits are part of the plan. "That's the whole point of what we tried to establish," she said. "We wanted companies to invest in and develop these technologies." The EPA wants vehicle emissions at the corporate average equivalent of 54.4 miles per gallon fuel economy by 2025, and so far that seems achievable. It will translate to less than 40 mpg on the EPA sticker. In a report last summer, the industry was about 10 grams per mile of CO2 better than the rules required, and that was solely based on 2012 model year vehicles. In an update for 2013, the companies were up to 12 grams per mile beyond targets. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Mark Humphrey / AP Photo Government/Legal Green Ford GM Emissions Fuel Efficiency FCA fca us

Xcar flogs the 2015 Ford Focus ST

There's an inevitable dilemma that practically every auto fan eventually faces, at least other than Jay Leno and Jerry Seinfeld, and that's the tradeoff of performance, practicality and perhaps most importantly, money. Parking the fabled supercar in the garage might be the wish, but for most folks bigger responsibilities – like a family – just don't allow that dream to be a reality. In the view of XCar Films, this intersection of needs and wants is where vehicles like the latest Ford Focus ST provide a fantastic compromise between exciting driving and everyday practicality. Xcar hops into Ford's recently refreshed European hot hatch to illustrate its abilities as both a hauler for the small family on the move and for the driver who just wants to go. The Blue Oval left the powertrain alone for the ST's update, but sharpened the exterior styling, revised the interior and retuned the front suspension and steering. Being realistic, no one is ever going to get behind the wheel of the Focus ST and mistake it for a Porsche, but that's not really the point. Instead, buyers get to put a smile on their face from time to time and still maintain life's other responsibilities. Related Gallery 2015 Ford Focus ST (Euro-spec) View 14 Photos News Source: Xcar Films via YouTubeImage Credit: Related images copyright Ford Ford Hatchback Performance Videos ford focus st xcar xcar films

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.