1930 Ford Model A Coupe With Rumble Seat ( No Reserve ) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Trump wants a trade deal, but South Korea doesn't want US cars

SEOUL - US auto imports from the likes of General Motors and Ford must become more chic, affordable or fuel-efficient to reap the rewards of President Donald Trump's attempts to renegotiate a trade deal with key ally South Korea, officials and industry experts in Seoul say. Meeting South Korean President Moon Jae-in last week in Washington, Trump said the United States would do more to address trade imbalances with South Korea and create "a fair shake" to sell more cars there, the world's 11th largest auto market. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." While imports from automakers including Ford, Chrysler and GM more than doubled last year largely thanks to free trade deal which took effect in 2012, sales account for just 1 percent of a market dominated by more affordable models from local giants Hyundai and affiliate Kia. Imports make up just 15 percent of the overall Korean auto market, and are mainly more luxurious models from German automakers BMW and Daimler AG's Mercedes-Benz, which also benefit from a trade deal with the European Union. "Addressing non-tariff barriers would not fundamentally raise the competitiveness of US cars," a senior Korean government official told Reuters, declining to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." TASTE BARRIER In Korea, US imports are seen as lagging German brands in brand image, sophistication and fuel economy, industry experts say. US imports do have a competitive advantage in electric cars: Tesla Motors' electric vehicles are seen as both environmentally friendly and trendy, while GM has launched a long-range Bolt EV. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had cited a quota in the current trade deal as an obstacle to boosting imports. The quota allows US automakers to bring in each year 25,000 vehicles that meet US, not necessarily Korean, safety standards. Should GM, for example, decide to bring in more than its quota of one model - the Impala sedans - it would cost up to $75 million to modify the cars to meet Korean safety standards, the company told its local labor union. Asked about non-tariff barriers, a spokesman at GM's Korean unit said removing them could expand the range of models the company can bring in from the United States. No US company, however, has yet to make full use of the quota, industry data shows.

2020 Ford Explorer safer than old model; crash test ratings short of Top Safety Pick

The 2020 Ford Explorer three-row crossover has improved on the outgoing model in many ways. According to the IIHS, it has also improved in a number of safety categories, but not enough to earn a Top Safety Pick award. The culprit is not the headlight performance for once. The Explorer's headlights were given an "Acceptable" rating, which would be sufficient for Top Safety Pick, if not Top Safety Pick +. Where the Ford falls short is in the front small overlap driver-side crash test, in which it got the second highest "Acceptable" rating. The IIHS requires a "Good" rating in this category, whereas an "Acceptable" rating on the passenger side would be, well, acceptable for Top Safety Pick. According to IIHS, Ford will be reviewing the results to figure out what the issue is, and it will likely make revisions to future Explorers to improve the result. Other than the one test, the Explorer performed admirably. It received a "Good" rating in all other crash categories except the passenger-side small overlap that was not tested. Both its standard and optional forward collision prevention systems had the highest "Superior" ratings, with the standard one preventing a collision with a car at speeds of up to 25 mph, and the optional one avoiding a collision at 12 mph, and "nearly" preventing one at 25 mph. Headlights are rated as "Acceptable" and so is access to child seat LATCH anchors. Also worth noting is that the Explorer's crash test ratings apply to its luxurious twin the 2020 Lincoln Aviator, meaning it also doesn't get a Top Safety Pick rating. The forward collision system performed the same as in the Ford, and the only difference between the two was in headlight performance. The Lincoln's standard headlights, included on the base, Reserve and Grand Touring trims, have the second-lowest "Marginal" rating, but the optional headlights for those trims, and the standard ones on the Black Label trim, received the "Good" rating. Among three-row Explorer competitors, the Honda Pilot, Hyundai Santa Fe XL, Kia Telluride, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota Highlander all have a Top Safety Pick. The Hyundai Palisade, Mazda CX-9, Subaru Ascent, and the slightly smaller Kia Sorento and Volkswagen Tiguan all have a Top Safety Pick +. As for Lincoln Aviator competitors, the Cadillac XT6, Infiniti QX60, Lexus RX and Volvo XC90 get a Top Safety Pick. The Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class and two-row-only BMW X5 get the Top Safety Pick + rating. Related Video:      

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.