One Owner Ranger With 43,000 Miles, Ultra Clean, Automatic, Air, Runs Strong on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Edge First Drive [w/videos]

We're routinely told that it's not easy being the middle child. The oldest sibling will always outshine the rest, while the youngest is routinely doted upon. The middle child, meanwhile, is seemingly never able to measure up. You know the drill: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! But that hasn't really been the case for Ford's mid-kid crossover, the Edge. Sandwiched between its highly successful big brother, the Explorer, and the stylish younger brother, the Escape, the Edge has had plenty of its own bragging rights over the years. It's where the Blue Oval chose to first launch MyFord Touch in 2011, and was one of the company's first applications of an EcoBoost engine in a CUV. For 2015, Ford has given the Edge a brand-new outfit, complete with stand-out sheetmetal and a revamped 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine fitted with a twin-scroll turbocharger and direct-injection. The result is a vehicle that truly stands out from its compact and fullsize siblings while promising to retain Ford's edge in the midsize CUV market. Where many of Ford's cars have opted for a slim, Aston Martin-like grille, the new Edge's face is big and bold. It's around back, however, where the Edge really comes up with its own personality. The slimmer D-pillar forms the edges of a more aggressively raked rear window. It's difficult to spot in pictures, but the result is a decidedly more assertive profile than the outgoing CUV. Beyond that, the rear is home to Fusion-inspired taillights, although unlike Ford's popular midsize sedan, they're joined together by a vehicle-spanning lighting element that prominently features a Ford badge at its center. Ford's work on the Edge's interior is less progressive, though. The owner of a 2014 model wouldn't feel the least bit out of place climbing behind the wheel of a 2015, as it features Ford's same reconfigurable instrument cluster, and a center stack that's been crowned by the latest (and final) edition of MyFord Touch. Meanwhile, more JD Power Initial Quality Study-friendly buttons have replaced the obstinate and unintuitive touch-capacitive controls. The conservative take on the interior design belies the big improvements in material quality. The leather inserts in the doors are more heavily padded and the plastics are far softer. It's a similar story throughout the cabin, where owners will notice softer dash plastics and generally richer materials.

2017 North American Car, Truck, and Utility of the Year entries announced

Over 40 vehicles will compete for the 2017 North American Car, Truck, and Utility of the Year awards. If that name looks a little strange, it's because the competition added a third category. In years past, pickup trucks, crossovers, SUVs, commercial vans, and minivans competed for the same award. That's why there were occasionally weird comparisons, like last year's competition between the Volvo XC90 and Nissan Titan XD. The new format separates pickups and commercial vans into the truck contest and CUVs, SUVs, and minivans into the utility competition. A complete list of eligible vehicles is below, but here are a few highlights. For one, the entire list of entries has a luxurious lean. Of the 43 vehicles, nearly half of them are from premium brands. There are two eligible Bentleys – the Bentayga and Mulsanne – the Rolls-Royce Dawn, Jaguar F-Pace, Audi Q7, and the Mercedes-Benz GLS-, E-, and S-Class Maybach. The performance ranks are lofty, too, with the Audi R8, Acura NSX, Alfa Romeo Giulia, Mercedes SL- and SLC-Class, Porsche 718, and F-150 Raptor. The mainstream entries are just as comprehensive. From the Chrysler Pacifica to the Chevrolet Cruze to the Fiat 124 Spider to the Mitsubishi Mirage, NACTOY has covered an enormous price range with this year's contestants. Of course, these are only the eligible vehicles. They'll need to run through three rounds of judging, starting in September at NACTOY's traditional Hell, MI, test drive. The Canadian and American journalists involved in the judging will announce this year's nine finalists – three in each category – on December 6. Cars Acura NSX Alfa Romeo Giulia Audi A4 Audi R8 Bentley Mulsanne Buick Cascada Buick LaCrosse Cadillac CT6 Chevrolet Bolt Chevrolet Cruze Fiat 124 Genesis G90 Hyundai Elantra Infiniti Q60 Jaguar XE Kia Cadenza Lincoln Continental Mercedes-Benz E-Class sedan Mercedes-Benz S550 Maybach Mercedes-Benz SL-Class Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class Mini Clubman Mitsubishi Mirage/G4 Porsche 718 Boxster and Cayman Rolls-Royce Dawn Toyota Prius Prime Volvo S90 SUVs Audi Q7 Bentley Bentayga Buick Envision Cadillac XT5 Chrysler Pacifica GMC Acadia Infiniti QX30 Kia Sportage Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class Jaguar F-Pace Mazda CX-9 Nissan Armada Trucks Ford F-Series Super Duty pickups Ford F-150 Raptor Honda Ridgeline Nissan Titan half-ton Related Video: Featured Gallery Bentley Bentayga View 23 Photos News Source: Automotive News - sub.

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.