2010 Ford Edge Se 3.5l V6 Cruise Ctrl Alloy Wheels 35k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford F-150 claims segment's best payload, towing ratings

While we are set to drive the new, 2015 Ford F-150 in the coming days, there's a big piece of news on the latest-generation of the Blue Oval's bread-and-butter pickup coming out of Dearborn, and it focuses on the truck's hauling and towing abilities.
The new F-150 will have a maximum payload of 3,300-pounds (V8 models), and, perhaps more importantly, a 12,200-pound tow rating (EcoBoost V6 models), which for the first time are compliant with the Society of Automotive Engineer's J2807 standards. Those best-in-class figures are significant feathers in Ford's cap as the Detroit Three continue duking it out for the title of top pickup.
"As founding members of the SAE trailer towing committee, we will meet SAE trailer towing standards," Ford's Aaron Miller told Autoblog.

2015 Ford Mustang renders reveal look of the real thing

This is, according to the pony-car obsessed kids over at Mustang6G.com, the closest, most accurate rendering of the new, 2015 Ford Mustang to date. Artis Chazcron used a combination of Ford CAD images and information from assorted spy shots to assemble a fairly handsome car, albeit one that conforms to the tired cliché of being more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Now, it's very important to note that these are still speculative renders, and that they only represent the base car - that could explain the lack of the Mustang's vestigial side scoops, along with other, newer styling cues that Mustang6G seems to think will arrive on production models. Those items include a new, double-bubble roof, although the Mustang aficionados claim that even if it were present, it'd barely be visible from these angles.
The front end is pretty spot on, compared to what we've seen from earlier spy shots, while the tail, with its interesting light design is something new. The louvered taillights look quite different from the current version, obviously, though Mustang has gone the whimsical route with taillights before. Also, note the new rear diffuser uses an integrated reverse light and rear foglight, the latter of which is required for sale in Europe.

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.