2000 Ford Excursion Limited Sport Utility 4-door 6.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Win a car while supporting a charity this holiday season

Autoblog may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page. Pricing and availability are subject to change. No donation or payment necessary to enter or win this sweepstakes. See official rules on Omaze.  The leaves have fallen, there is a crispness to the air and there have already been multiple forecasts of snow, which can only mean one thing: We're coming up on Christmas. While you've been busy thinking about what kind of gifts you're going to give your loved ones, we here at Autoblog have been deciding which dream car we'd like to see in our driveway on Christmas morning. A car for Christmas does seem a bit extreme and expensive, but thanks to these Omaze sweepstakes, it doesn't have to break the bank. Here are the current sweepstakes we'd like to win this holiday season. Win a DeLorean DMC-12 - Enter at Omaze James Riswick, West Coast Editor: Let me be clear, the DeLorean is a pretty terrible car. Its speedometer doesn't even go up to the fabled 88 mph. Seriously, look at the pictures: tops out at 85. Also, who services a DeLorean? And how much would it cost to maintain one? $AlloftheMoney or just $MostoftheMoney? So owning it could be a total headache, but at least by winning one through Omaze, you'd be relieved of the financial burden of buying one in the first place. You'd also get the chance to own one of the most iconic cars of all time, one that transcends car enthusiasm and is instantly recognizable by everyone as the "Back to the Future" car. Plus, "everyone" doesn't know that the DeLorean was actually a pretty terrible car. So, I already own James Bond's car from 1995, why not Doc Brown's from 1985? Win a 2021 Bentley Bentayga V8 - Enter at Omaze Eddie Sabatini, Production Manager: Why am I choosing a +$200K Bentley SUV? Because even if I could afford one I'd never be able to wrap my head around spending money on one. So why not try to win one by donating what I can afford to a good cause? I first saw the Bentley Bentayga up close and personal at the Frankfurt Motor Show (I forget which year but I'll never forget this SUV). And although it looks like the Bentayga Omaze is offering up doesn't have the opulent tailgate setup I fell in love with when I saw it in Frankfurt, I'd still enter to win. Win a 1968 Mercedes-Benz 280SL Pagoda - Enter at Omaze Byron Hurd, Editor: Few automotive marketing efforts stick out in my head more than the Mercedes-Benz holiday spots and magazine placements.

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.

Ford to update Sync, MyFord Touch software... again

Ford hasn't had the best luck with its MyFord Touch and Sync systems, as the finicky infotainment system has been subject to a critical whooping while customer issues have helped sink Ford's IQS scores. The automaker has made a concerted effort, though, to try and fix MyFord Touch. And while the results have been mixed, The Blue Oval is hoping its latest free update, set to go live next week, will make things better.
According to a report from The Detroit News, the new system promises streamlined voice commands with fewer levels between opening query and actual result. Ford is also addressing where certain options are selected on the touchscreen. Rather than working one of the four quadrants on the homescreen, users will be able to select anywhere within the quadrant to make adjustments.
While it might only be a band-aid for MFT's problems, the fact that Ford is still trying to improve it is a promising sign. It's going to take more than just this update to address the system's ills, though.