1999 Ford Escort Zx2 Low Miles Nice Clean Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Question of the Day: Most degraded car name?

When Ford came up with a not-so-sporty version of the Pinto and slapped Mustang badges on it in 1974, that was a low point for the Mustang name. When Chrysler applied the venerable Town & Country name on perfectly functional but unglamorous minivans, it saddened many of us. But perhaps the biggest demotion for a once-proud model came when, in 1988, General Motors imported a misery-enhancing Daewoo from Korea and called it the Pontiac LeMans. The original Pontiac LeMans was a great-looking midsize car with fairly advanced (for the time) suspension design and engine options including potent V8s and a screaming overhead-cam straight-six. The Daewoo-based Pontiac LeMans was a cramped, shoddy hooptie that served only to ruin the LeMans name forever, while stealing sales from the Suzuki-based Chevrolet Sprint. Sure, using the once-respected Monterey name on the Mercurized Ford Freestar was bad, but Mercury didn't have long to live at that point. I say the downward spiral of the LeMans name was the most agonizing in automotive history. What do you think? Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Auto News Ford Mercury Pontiac Automotive History Classics questions ford pinto names

Ford Focus PHEV on the way?

A refreshed Ford Focus is in the works and that means a few details are leaking out. Spy shots from last month indicated the Focus will have a gaping grille just like its "One Ford" global C-segment comrade, the Fiesta. While Ford is being quiet about it, the Focus could also be getting an "Energi" option, joining the C-Max Energi and Fusion Energi in Ford's plug-in hybrid family. The Focus will likely use technology originated in the C-Max Energi that combines a 2.0-liter gasoline engine with an electric motor capable of a 20-mile range, according to Autoexpress. The pure electric Focus is expected to stay in the lineup despite its slow sales; its price range should be similar to what's on the market now. The third-generation Focus looked good enough to become the top-selling nameplate in the world in 2012. Some exterior changes to look for in the Euro-spec model at the Geneva Motor Show in March include a reshaped hood, front wing endplate and rear bumper. Interior spy shots have hinted at an updated dashboard design and a simplified, less cluttered control panel with updated climate controls. Under the hood, there are quite a few power options rumored to be available - a gasoline EcoBoost with up to 123 horsepower and two turbo-diesel TDCI options, a 1.6-liter or 2.0-liter mills that would produce between 94 hp and 161 hp. Then there are new 1.5-liter diesel and 1.5-liter EcoBoost gasoline variants that meet regulations in China, Brazil and Russia.

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.