1978 Ford Bronco Custom Sport Utility 2-door 2 Wheel Drive Project on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico

President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.

Marchionne open to combination with Ford or GM

At the depths of the auto industry implosion, there was widely reported talk that General Motors and Chrysler would be merged into a mighty import-beating behemoth. While such notions clearly never materialized, that doesn't mean the idea is dead. In fact, FCA boss Sergio Marchionne still welcomes the idea of a partnership with either GM or Ford. He responded positively to the idea, calling it "technically feasible," when asked about it at the 2015 Geneva Motor Show, Automotive News reports. "There's bantering that goes on all the time," Marchionne told AN, before quashing suspicions that a plan was in the works by adding that "nothing substantive" was going on. Our favorite black sweater enthusiast isn't quite as interested in the idea of teaming with a foreign manufacturer like PSA Peugeot Citroen, or in the rumored tie-up with Volkswagen, though. That is a shame, particularly in regards to Marchionne's shut down of a partnership with the French, although it isn't necessarily surprising – FCA already consists of eight automakers, and as Sergio told AN, there's really nothing at PSA that could help the company out. What are your thoughts? Is there an obvious project or segment that would benefit from an FCA partnership with Ford or GM? Have your say in Comments. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Marco Bertorello / AFP / Getty Images Chrysler Fiat Ford GM Sergio Marchionne FCA merger

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.