1965 Mercury Monterey Base 6.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford finds flex-fuel engine design plays big role in emissions output

How bad is ethanol for your engine? There's been a lot of debate on this issue as the US considers upping the biofuel content in the national gasoline supply from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15). The ethanol industry and some scientists say higher ethanol blends show no "meaningful differences" in new engines while the oil industry says ethanol creates health risks. Researchers working at the Ford Research and Innovation Center decided to take a closer look at how a wide range of gas-ethanol blends - E0, E10, E20, E30, E40, E55 and E80 - affected the emissions coming out of a flex-fuel 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis. To see the full report, printed in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, requires payment, but there is an abstract and Green Car Congress has some more details. The gist is that, "with increasing ethanol content in the fuel, the tailpipe emissions of ethanol, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, methane, and ammonia increased." At least NOx and NMHC emissions decreased. The researchers say that the effects are due to the fuel and "are expected for all FFVs," but that the way that a manufacturer calibrates the engine will affect NOx, THC, and NMOG emissions. It's this last bit that's important, since the researchers found, "Higher ethanol content in gasoline affects several fundamental fuel properties that can impact emissions. ... These changes can have positive or negative effects that can depend on engine design, hardware, and control strategy. In addition to direct emissions impacts, higher ethanol content fuel can also provide more efficient combustion and overall engine operation under part-load conditions and under knock-limited higher-load conditions." So, as we head towards more ethanol in our fuel supply (maybe), manufacturers are going to need to learn how to burn it most efficiently.

Ford recalling 450,000 Fusion, Mercury Milan sedans

Ford has announced a pair of recalls, and both are critical safety issues. The exponentially larger of the two recall campaigns affects over 450,000 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan sedans manufactured at the Hermosillo plant between July 21, 2008, and March 4, 2011. The canister purge valve in the fuel tank could malfunction and could cause the top of the tank to crack and leak fuel. That could cause a fire, although Ford "is not aware of any accidents, injuries or fires" resulting from the issue. Affected vehicles will have their ECU software updated and their fuel tanks inspected for potential replacement. The company estimates there are 411,205 affected units in the United States (and its federalized territories), plus another 33,605 in Canada, and 7,055 in Mexico. The second recall affects 13 F-650 trucks. The column shifter's park position mechanism may fracture and let the truck roll away unexpectedly. Those 2016 models built in Ohio between July 29 and September 3, 2015 are all located in the US. Fixing the problem will require replacing the steering column and reconfiguring the instrument panel. FORD ISSUES TWO SAFETY RECALLS IN NORTH AMERICA DEARBORN, Mich., Nov. 23, 2015 – Ford Motor Company is issuing two safety recalls in North America. Ford is not aware of any accidents, injuries or fires related to these conditions. Details are as follows: Ford issues safety recall for certain 2010-2011 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles in North America for potential fuel tank issue Ford Motor Company is issuing a safety recall for approximately 450,000 2010-2011 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles for a potential issue with the fuel tank. Some of these vehicles might have a canister purge valve that does not work properly, causing internal pressure changes inside the fuel tank. Repeated pressure changes inside the tank could result in a crack on the top of the tank, possibly allowing fuel to leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source can lead to a fire. Ford is not aware of any accidents, injuries or fires related to this condition. Affected vehicles include certain 2010-2011 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant from July 21, 2008 through March 4, 2011. There are a total of approximately 451,865 vehicles that might be affected in North America, including 411,205 vehicles in the United States and federalized territories, 33,605 in Canada and 7,055 in Mexico.

Junkyard Gem: 1996 Nissan Quest XE with 338,549 miles

When I hit the junkyard, I always look for vehicles with impressive final figures showing on their odometers. I find so many Hondas and Toyotas with better than 300,000 miles that I don't consider them especially noteworthy (the exception being super-low-spec cheap models, such as a Tercel or Civic VX), and it goes without saying that the bar is quite high for Mercedes-Benzes as well. It has been surprisingly difficult to find discarded Nissans that made it past the 300k mark; today's Junkyard Gem is just the fourth I've documented. The highest-mile junked Nissan I'd found prior to today's minivan is a 1994 Maxima with 364,238 miles, followed by a 1987 Maxima with 341,176 miles and a 1986 200SX with 309,222 miles. Keep in mind that Nissan didn't go to six-digit odometers on most of its US-market cars until the early 1980s, and then went to tough-to-read-in-the-junkyard electronic odometers in the early 2000s; this means the pool of potential high-mile Nissans is limited to about the 1983-2000 range of model years. Ford has just as much right to claim credit to this van's impressive mile total as does Nissan, since the Quest was a collaboration between Ford and Nissan that also produced the Mercury Villager; this van was built by Ford at the Ohio Assembly plant. The Quest/Villager platform was derived from the Maxima's, and the engine is pure Nissan: a 3.0-liter VG30 V6 rated at 151 horsepower. The only transmission available in the first-generation (1993-1999) Quest/Villager was a four-speed automatic. This one appears to have been sold new at Landrum Nissan in Pueblo. The rear glass has been painted flat black, possibly to keep prying eyes from seeing valuable cargo. The rear seats are long gone, so this van probably hauled cargo for much of its long life. The front interior seems to be in good shape. Why is this van here? There's body damage on the left rear and right front, suggesting a crash that may have bent the suspension past the worth-fixing threshold. Perhaps the crinkled metal just made this van too unsightly, or maybe some powertrain problem was the culprit. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's time to expect more from a minivan. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's all fun and games until the toddler takes the wheel.