2008 Ford Mustang Gt, Salvage Title, Wrecked, Runs And Lot Drives. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Peel and Ford Transit do a great Austin Powers impression

It's no secret that the average fullsize cargo van is big. Like, really big. Expressing that size, though, without actually seeing the van in question, is a pretty tall order. When viewed from the right angle, even something as big as a cargo van can appear very small (look up forced perspective, to see what we mean). That's why it's always good to have a second object on hand, to provide a sense of scale. Ford took this simple idea to the extreme, illustrating the size of the new Ford Transit by pulling the world's smallest production car, the Peel P50, nose first into the van's 487-cubic-foot cargo area. That's no big deal, though, right? After all, at just 54 inches long and 39 inches wide, the Peel would fit quite happily in even the smallest fullsize truck bed. Ford takes it a step further, though. With the help of an actual reverse gear (we're guessing this is a CVT-equipped, electric model), the P50 manages to turn itself around and drive out. It does this in less than two minutes. So yeah, the Ford Transit is a pretty big van. Take a look below for the video from Ford. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Related Gallery Peel P-50 and Trident News Source: fordvideo1 via YouTube Auto News Humor Ford Minivan/Van Commercial Vehicles Videos ford transit

Ford offering factory-spec EcoBoost reflashes that don't void warranty*

Buy a supercharger or cold-air kit from Ford Racing and a Performance Calibration handset comes with it to reset the ECU for the upgrade. Now Ford Racing is offering the ProCal handset a la carte for $595, allowing you to reflash the ECU on your EcoBoost-equipped ride to extract more of its inherent capabilities without any additional upgrades. It gives you control of variables such as throttle response, idle speed and turbo wastegate control, among others. As for that warranty asterisk, the press release says enthusiasts can up the power "while maintaining the Ford-backed limited warranty." However Ford Motor Co. and Ford Racing are separate entities, and, best we can tell, when you reflash the ECU, your Ford warranty gets supplanted by the Ford Racing warranty. Say you bought a 2014 Ford, that means your five-year, 60,000-mile warranty becomes Ford Racing's three-year, 36,000-mile warranty, if we're reading the fine print correctly. If you have an older car and have driven more than 36,000 miles, then your warranty options are kaput, at least as far as a Ford in-house option. If have warranty concerns, you might also want to consider having a dealer perform the reflash, or at least ask about it. Once you've got past the small print, what about the numbers? At the moment Ford Racing offers tunes for the 2.0-liter EcoBoost in the Focus ST and the 1.6-liter EcoBoost in the Fiesta ST, and we're told there's a 90-pound-foot boost in torque at the crank after you've pressed the right buttons. Anecdotal evidence from a commenter at Road & Track says he went from 252 horsepower at the flywheel to 254 hp at the wheels, and 272 lb-ft at the flywheel to 354 lb-ft at the wheels, but we can't be sure that his adjustments were within Ford Racing specs. Your mileage, naturally, may vary. What about custom numbers for the 2.3-liter EcoBoost in the 2015 Ford Mustang? They aren't ready yet, but we're told we'll get something by the end of next year. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Focus ST News Source: Ford, Ford Racing via Car and Driver Aftermarket Ford Technology ecoboost ford focus st ford fiesta st ford racing

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.