1994 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer Sport Utility 2-door 5.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford S-Max Concept proves minivans aren't always minivans [w/video]

Ford's latest don't-call-it-a-minivan is called the S-Max Concept, and it's a looker. As you can see, the conceptual overgrown hatch makes good use of Ford's latest design language, especially at the very front of the S-Max, which bears a striking resemblance to production models that include the Focus, C-Max and Fusion.
Powering the S-Max Concept is a 1.5-liter EcoBoost engine, and while Ford doesn't actually list power figures for the concept, previous estimates put the mill at 133 kW of power (about 178 horsepower) and 240 Nm of torque (about 177 pound-feet). Inside, there's room for seven passengers and at least some of their luggage.
As you'd expect, the S-Max is loaded up with all of Ford's latest infotainment technology, including Sync and MyFordTouch. More interestingly, there are also onboard heart and blood glucose monitors that we doubt will be seeing the light of production anytime soon. On that topic, don't expect to see any S-Max-shaped vehicles hitting the US market from Ford, either. Scroll down below for the press release, but not before checking out the high-res image gallery above.

Ford readying Ranger-based Everest SUV?

Way back in August, we showed you a Ford concept for the Australian market called the Everest. Now, we can show you that work on the new Ranger-based SUV is well under way.
At this stage, it's still quite clearly a mule (note the misalignment of the front and rear doors), wearing the Ranger's front end and the rump of Ford's overseas Territory crossover. The wheelbase is shorter than a Ranger, according to our spy photographers, which strikes us as somewhat odd for a more passenger-oriented vehicle. Disc brakes should be fitted at all four corners, while the new SUV, which will almost certainly wear the Everest name, should sport a new rear suspension.
In terms of looks, we're expecting the Everest Concept to inform the appearance of the production model. Naturally, there will also be some interior tweaks, particularly around the dashboard, which is covered in these photos.

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.