2001 Ford Excursion Limited Sport Utility 4-door 6.8l 4x4 Can Ship V10 Leather on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford barely edges surging Chrysler for Canadian sales crown in best year ever

The auto industry in the US showed strong results through much of 2014 with sales regularly growing year-over-year for many brands. That same trend carried over in the Great White North, as well. Canada posted its best numbers ever with 1.85 million units sold, up about 100,000 vehicles over 2013. The country nearly had a new market leader, too. The big winner among our neighbors to the north in 2014 was Ford with 291,951 vehicles sold, up 3 percent from 2013, according to Reuters. That success also handed the company the sales crown for the fifth consecutive year. In large part, the strong result came from the company's popular trucks, which represented about 80 percent of overall sales. "Ford moved into the number one position in September and didn't look back," said a note to clients by DesRosiers Automotive Consultants quoted by Reuters. However, the Blue Oval didn't exactly take an overwhelming lead for the year. The company nearly had to hand over the sales trophy to FCA after the company rallied in the latter part of the year. The Italian-American conglomerate had its best results ever to nip at the Ford's heels and move 290,004 units for 2014, a 12-percent improvement from last year. Jeep especially helped the bottom line with over 50-percent growth, according to Reuters. Only two other brands were able to break the 200,000-vehicle barrier in Canada for 2014. General Motors came in third place overall with 249,800 sales, up 6.3 percent. The combined Toyota and Lexus also barely jumped the hurdle with 200,851 units moved, a 2.8 percent improvement.

Chevy Silverado frame twist test a marketing victory versus Ford

The pickup market is so competitive that all three major American makers are constantly trying to find a way to prove their product is the best. The new 2015 Ford F-150 is grabbing headlines at the moment by winning awards and posting segment best numbers. But in a new video, Chevrolet is taking aim squarely at the 2015 F-250 Super Duty in a battle of heavy-duty truck supremacy against the 2015 Chevy Silverado 2500HD... well, in a single metric anyway.
The big numbers from pickups often come down to payload, towing rating and fuel economy, but for this test, Chevy and Howie Long are challenging the torsional rigidity of the trucks' frames, specifically which one flexes less. Long plays the everyman here having the Chevy engineer explain what's going on in the tests. Unsurprisingly for a video on Chevy's official YouTube page, the 2500HD wins out by a good margin. The company also reports that similar results as shown here have been certified in third-party testing.
Check out the video to see the full test. While this might seem like a marketing win for Chevy, Ford isn't immune to it, either. In 2009, the Blue Oval uploaded a similar video comparing the flex under 225 pounds of weight from the bare frames of the F-150, Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram (as it was still called at the time) and the Toyota Tundra. The results fell in the Blue Oval's favor, as you can see here.

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.