1969 Ford Bronco Rock Crawler 4x4 Jeep, Fj40, 4runner, Land Cruiser, Land Rover on 2040-cars

Auto blog

How tariffs in China could cause a meltdown in the American South

While BMW is clearly a German company, the crossovers that are exceedingly important to it are actually made in Spartanburg, South Carolina. And more than that, the Spartanburg plant (physically located in the town of Greer) is where the corporate know-how and capability for those vehicles is concentrated. These are the vehicles – specifically, the BMW X3, X4, X5, X6, X7 – that drove record growth for the company in 2018, according to BMW. But whatÂ’s most notable about BMW Group Plant Spartanburg, given current events, is that according to the U.S. Department of Commerce it was the largest automotive exporter by value for the fifth year running in 2018. ThatÂ’s worth emphasizing: largest automotive exporter by value. Not GM. Not Ford. BMW. And where might one assume that more than a few of those X vehicles are shipped to? China. Some 360 miles southwest of Spartanburg is Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., in in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. It started building vehicles in 1997. Since then, Daimler AG has invested in excess of $5.5 billion in the facility. It manufactures the crossover now known as the GLE, formerly the ML-Class. It also makes the GLE coupe and GLS. Daimler describes the Tuscaloosa facility as “the traditional home of SUV production” for those vehicles. When it reported its global 2018 sales, Daimler noted that on a global basis SUVs account “for more than a third of all Mercedes-Benz sales.” According to the Chinese finance ministry, on December 15th the Chinese government will impose a 25% tariff on automobiles (and a 5% tariff on auto parts) from the U.S. Certainly this is going to have a direct effect on the sales of vehicles that are manufactured in the U.S. and exported to China. BMW and Mercedes are going to take it on the chin for the vehicles that they make in plants that they invested in so heavily in the U.S. Which could potentially mean that people in places like Greer, South Carolina, and Vance, Alabama, are going to find themselves in the crosshairs of the combatants. Soo too could Lincoln, which produces vehicles in places like Louisville, Kentucky (Navigator), Chicago, Illinois (Aviator) and Flat Rock, Michigan (Continental). Although the Tesla Gigafactory 3 is rapidly nearing completion in Shanghai, it is worth noting that vehicles built in Fremont, California, are being sold in China in numbers that donÂ’t make Musk unhappy.

Ford making Fusion production moves to challenge Camry on volume

The Ford Fusion may already beat the Toyota Camry in terms of models offered, transaction price and sales increase so far this year, but if the Fusion wants to make a run at the title of best-selling car in the US, Bloomberg reminds us that volume is key. Opening a second production line at the Flat Rock, MI assembly plant will reportedly allow Ford to produce around 350,000 Fusions annually, which compares Toyota's ability to crank out 475,000 Camrys and Honda's capacity to build around 450,000 Accords.
For the Fusion, that's an extra 100,000 units compared to the car's current pace, and the article adds that the Fusion is "Ford's best shot" to regain the passenger car sales crown - a title it (or any other US automaker, for that matter) hasn't held since the mid-1990s. Despite hiccups with recalls and fuel economy numbers, the Ford Fusion is still red hot when it comes to sales. Fusion sales are up 13 percent so far this year (compared to a 0.6 percent decrease for Camry), and its average transaction price of $26,343 is about $2,300 more than its rival from Toyota.
The Fusion's popularity has helped Ford improve its sales in California; the Dearborn-based automaker has a market share of 18 percent in the state, which is just a fraction of a percentage behind Honda. And this popularity should continue as Ford ups Fusion production and expands the model lineup even further for 2014 with a new 1.5-liter EcoBoost engine soon to become an option.

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.