Ford Expedition Limited 4x4 Dvd Great Cond No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

New 2020 Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator recalled for minor safety issues

Ford has announced a small recall on 2020 Explorers and 2020 Lincoln Aviators. Select units might be missing a manual park release cover, while others might have instrument clusters stuck in Factory Mode. The recall affects 14,135 SUVs in total.  While a vehicle is in production in a manufacturing facility, Ford might put them in what is known as Factory Mode to help reduce battery drain. Affecting the instrument cluster, this mode disables warning alerts, warning chimes, and does not show the PRNDL gear selector display. Ford says one vehicle was in an accident at a production facility as a result of the issue, but nobody was injured.  Separately, Ford found that some of these Explorers and Aviators might be lacking a manual park release cover. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require a manual park release cover that is only removable with a tool. Without the cover, there is a very minor chance the manual park release could be accidentally actuated, which could allow the vehicle to move on its own.  The recalls affect 13,896 vehicles in the U.S. and 239 in Canada. The Explorers were built between March 27, 2019, and July 24, 2019. The Aviators were built between April 10, 2019, and July 24, 2019. Owners can use Ford's recall number 19C06, and if affected, can take their vehicles in for fixes.

Ford making Fusion production moves to challenge Camry on volume

The Ford Fusion may already beat the Toyota Camry in terms of models offered, transaction price and sales increase so far this year, but if the Fusion wants to make a run at the title of best-selling car in the US, Bloomberg reminds us that volume is key. Opening a second production line at the Flat Rock, MI assembly plant will reportedly allow Ford to produce around 350,000 Fusions annually, which compares Toyota's ability to crank out 475,000 Camrys and Honda's capacity to build around 450,000 Accords.
For the Fusion, that's an extra 100,000 units compared to the car's current pace, and the article adds that the Fusion is "Ford's best shot" to regain the passenger car sales crown - a title it (or any other US automaker, for that matter) hasn't held since the mid-1990s. Despite hiccups with recalls and fuel economy numbers, the Ford Fusion is still red hot when it comes to sales. Fusion sales are up 13 percent so far this year (compared to a 0.6 percent decrease for Camry), and its average transaction price of $26,343 is about $2,300 more than its rival from Toyota.
The Fusion's popularity has helped Ford improve its sales in California; the Dearborn-based automaker has a market share of 18 percent in the state, which is just a fraction of a percentage behind Honda. And this popularity should continue as Ford ups Fusion production and expands the model lineup even further for 2014 with a new 1.5-liter EcoBoost engine soon to become an option.

Ford says C-Max mpg reduction has hurt sales

The Ford C-Max is having a rough time. Sales for the five-door hybrid hatchback were down 39.1 percent in March to 2,295 cars, and sales from January through March were down 42.5 percent to 5,566 units. In an interview with The Detroit News, Ford Americas boss Joe Hinrichs places the blame on lowering the model's fuel economy rating.
"We're definitely seeing consideration on C-Max decline over time. We need to reinvest in the product because it's a great car," said Hinrichs to The Detroit News.
The company was hit with bad publicity over the C-Max when owners in multiple states filed class action lawsuits that alleged the cars weren't able to meet the stated fuel economy. Ford eventually re-rated the model from 47 miles per gallon city, highway and combined to 40 mpg city, 45 mpg highway and 43 mpg combined. To soften the blow of the change, the automaker sent checks to the owners to make up some of the difference. Initially, Ford claimed that demand remained strong for the hybrid. However, the latest sales figures and Hinrichs' statement seem to show the opposite.