1918 Ford Model T on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'Car Wars' says Ford, Honda to pick up share, Fiat-Chrysler ambitions downplayed

Don't look for a tremendous shifts in automotive market share over the next three years because it might not be coming. That's at least according to the annual Car Wars report by John Murphy, from Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research.
In the report's analysis of automakers' market share from 2013 to 2017, it predicts only small changes among the major companies. Ford and Honda see the biggest positive effect with an estimated 0.5 percent increase in their shares over the next three years; to 16.2 percent and 10.3 percent respectively. On the flip side, European automakers and Nissan are expected to lose 0.2 percent each to fall to 8.3 percent and 7.8 percent each respectively. The rest of the industry is predicted to hold steady as it is now.
The biggest loser in that prediction might be Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles. The report certainly throws a wet blanket on its plan for significant gains in market share. Murphy told The Detroit News that the company's goal was "almost unattainable."

May 2016: FCA wins, Ford and GM stumble on weak car volumes

The May 2016 sales numbers are in, and it looks as though FCA is getting some vindication for boldly cancelling two slow-selling car models. Meanwhile, Ford saw overall sales dip and GM's May volume took a big dive versus the same month in 2015. While Marchionne's decision to axe the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart has drawn criticism as being short-sighted, it's working for FCA so far. Although the Dart and 200 aren't out of production yet and no capacity has been shifted to crossover or trucks, May's numbers show that the emphasis on Jeep and Ram models makes sense right now. FCA's US sales rose 1 percent last month compared to May 2015, putting the year-to-date total at 955,186 vehicles, an increase of 6 percent compared to the same period last year. Standouts included the Jeep Renegade, Compass, and Patriot, and the Fiat 500X. Ram pickup sales were down 3 percent. And your fun fact is that Alfa Romeo sales were up precisely 10 percent, for a total of 44 4Cs sold versus 40 in the same month last year. At FoMoCo, the Ford brand took a hit to the tune of 6.4 percent from May 2015 to 2016, registering 226,190 sales last month. Lincoln showed improvement on its modest numbers, going from 9,174 to 9,807, a 6.9 percent increase. Overall, Ford was down 5.9 percent for the month to 235,997; despite the slump, year-to-date total Ford sales are up 4.2 percent to 1,112,939. Strong sellers included Escape, Expedition, F-Series, and Transit - big stuff. Most small and/or efficient models (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, C-Max) saw sales slides. Fusion sales were also down, likely due to effects of model changeover to the freshened 2017 model. Ford has promised four new crossovers and SUVs by 2020 and if things keep trending this way the company will be able to sell them, but things could change in the next four years. GM saw the worst of it for domestic brands. Retail and fleet sales were down for each of the four divisions, with the May 2016 total dropping 18 percent to 240,450 vehicles. GM's year-to-date sales are down 5.0 percent in 2016 to 1,183,705. Both the Sierra and Silverado were down significantly, and the majority of Chevy, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac nameplates saw sales decreases, with both small cars and larger utilities included. Not even big stuff could help GM this month, it seems. We'll have more on the rest of the industry's May sales as those figures trickle in.

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.