2000 Ford Crown Victoria on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford to revisit CVTs?

Today, Ford wishes its first experience with non-hybrid continuously variable transmissions was far behind it. The Blue Oval was awash in complaints and a couple of class-action lawsuits over the CVTs used in its 2005-2007 Ford Freestyle, Five Hundred and Mercury Montego models, which were a manufactured in Batavia, Ohio as part of a joint venture with ZF. The company gave up on the CVT after just two years, but with fuel economy standards pressing automakers to conjure new tricks, Ford's global product development head, Raj Nair, is now saying the transmissions might make a return, "particularly in the low torque applications," says Automotive News. An obvious candidate for CVT consideration is the 1.0-liter Fiesta that can presently only be had with a five-speed manual. Beyond that, the company's 1.6-liter and 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines might fit the bill. Ford hasn't given any indication as to what vehicles it might use to reintroduce the CVT to the US market, or hints about timeline or who would develop it, however. Some CVT trivia: The 1990 Subaru Justy II was the first US passenger car offered with a continuously variable transmission - Subaru called it the ECVT. It handled gearing duties for a 1.2-liter, inline three-cylinder engine that got all of 70 horsepower. A contemporary blurb about the car begins with "Goodness, gracious, great gobs of gimmickry," and goes on to say that "We can't imagine where you would take this car for repairs, but we are certain that the one mechanic in the world who can fix it lives in a very expensive house." The transmission didn't win any fans, but the ECVT and the car have been largely forgotten, while Subaru played the long game and now you'll find its vastly improved Lineartronic CVT on six of the eight models it sells.

UK's Loughborough University improving Ford's 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine

How much does it cost for college students to study zero emissions vehicles? At Loughborough University in the UK, a new Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC) is being built at a cost of a billion pounds ($1.7 billion US). The school has just announce that it will fund a number of grad student positions and is creating a new Chair in Advanced Propulsion Systems, which sounds like a fun job to us. We're weird like that. There will be a total of four professor-type positions in the new Center, including the chair, all focused on teaching students about low-carbon vehicle technologies, specifically electric and hybrid ones. The school is investing 1.5 million pounds ($2.5 million) for the new positions. There is a bigger picture as well, a 26-million pound ($44 million) Advanced Combustion Turbocharged Integrated Variable-valvetrain Engine (ACTIVE) project, which uses funds not only from the school but also from Ford and others. The point of ACTIVE is to study Ford's 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine and "improve further its efficiency and ensure it exceeds 2020 emission regulations." This is already a popular engine for the automaker, and it will need to stay at the bleeding edge of efficiency to remain as important in 2020 as it is today. Loughborough University has been working with automakers on advanced energy technologies for years, for example with Rolls-Royce and fuel cells in 2007 and the Lotus Hotfire engine in 2008. University invests GBP1.5M in advanced propulsion research to advance zero emissions vehicles challenge Loughborough University is investing GBP1.5M over five years in strategic research appointments, inspired by the global challenge to develop the new advanced propulsion technologies required for the move to zero emission vehicles. These appointments reinforce the University's world-class research in low-carbon vehicle technologies, adding new dimensions concerned with electric and hybrid drives. Four appointments will be made, including a Chair in Advanced Propulsion Systems, supported by a number of PhD studentships. The GBP1.5M investment is part of the University's commitment to the recently announced Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC) to support the development of new supply chains for low carbon vehicles. APC is an initiative established by the Automotive Council that will see GBP1 billion of investment from government and industry over the next 10 years.

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.