2007 Ford Econoline E250 Cargo Van,4.6 Liter V8,look $99.00 No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Swedish car mag says Ford Mondeo is dangerously, illegally overweight [w/video]

Sweden's Teknikens Varld has a reputation for being very persnickety when it comes to auto safety testing, and its latest catch is the Mondeo Titanium Estate 2.0 TDCi 150 bhp S6 MPS (basically a station wagon variant of the Fusion). In addition to the model's mile-long name, it has another problem according to the Swedes, because its weight on the scales does not equal the official numbers for the vehicle. Teknikens Varld claims the wagon is dangerously overweight because it weighs in 4,145 pounds, while Ford officially lists its weight at 3,530 pounds. That 615-pound disparity means that if a family loads it to what they think is the model's gross vehicle weight, it will actually be too heavy, and therefore illegal to drive in Sweden. According to the magazine, when it tried doing this, the rear wheels scraped against the wells, and the estate failed the mag's legendary moose test. However, at 220 pounds over the limit, it passed the test. When reached for comment by Autoblog, Jay Ward, Senior Manager at Ford of Europe Product Communications, explained the reason for the deviation between the official numbers and the magazine's test: "We are aware of this, but this is not an issue that relates specifically to the safety of the Mondeo, but is in fact related to the way in which the cars are tested by the authorities. We provided an Ambiente model for the testing but the car that featured in the magazine test was a Titanium model which has a different weight. We are in discussion with the Swedish Transport Agency to change the framework so the real weight of the Titanium model is reported instead of the Ambiente model which will resolve the issue." Teknikens Varld is well-known for calling out automakers for perceived transgressions. Most recently it leveled criticisms against the all-wheel drive system in the Honda CR-V, and both the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Porsche Macan failed its moose test. Scroll down for the magazine's video of weighing the Mondeo Estate and the model's test results. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. The new Ford Mondeo is dangerously overweight The new Ford Mondeo is a great car, which Teknikens Varld's test shows, but there is one problem – the weight. Mondeo weighs 279 kg more than Ford claims. With big load (ie family plus luggage) the car therefore becomes illegal to drive.

Petrolicious pays visit to tuning sensation the Ringbrothers

We caught up with a few projects from Ringbrothers at SEMA this year: a classic Ford Mustang body rendered in carbon fiber, and a De Tomaso Pantera-based concept that made us swoon.
It's with good timing then, that our friends at Petrolicious have uploaded their newest, well-crafted mini-documentary to the expansive airwaves of the Internet. Here, we meet the brothers Ring in person - Mike and Jim - and see how they've lent they're passion for craftsmanship to their business, along with their surname. A 1964 Ford Fairlane dubbed "Afterburner" and a 1965 Mustang called "Producer" star in this show.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.