1996 Ford Explorer Limited Awd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Weekly Recap: Marchionne's Manifesto again calls for industry consolidation

Sergio Marchionne isn't taking no for an answer. Despite public rebuffs from General Motors and Ford, the leader of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles continues to push for consolidation within the auto industry. His latest assertion came Wednesday when he said a combination of FCA with another automaker could net savings of $5 billion or more annually. No, this isn't about selling his company, he claimed, it's about cutting costs. Put simply, the auto industry wastes money, Marchionne said during FCA's earnings conference call. Companies invest billions to develop basic components that all cars use, but many consumers don't care how they work or recognize the differences. "About half of this is really relevant in terms of positioning the car in the marketplace," he said. "The other half, in our view, is stuff which is neither visible to the consumer nor is it relevant to the consumer." In 2014, top automakers spent more than $100 million on product development, FCA estimated. Marchionne said consolidation could save up to $1 billion on powertrains alone, noting that almost every automaker offers four- and six-cylinder engines. Not everyone has to make their own, he contended. "The consumer could not give a flying leap whose engines we are using because they are irrelevant to the buying decision." That's pretty provocative for enthusiasts, but less so for average consumers. Still, there are major differences in power and efficiency ratings, even among similar engines. Skeptics could argue consolidation would also weaken competition and reduce choices for car buyers. Marchionne stressed his presentation, curiously entitled Confessions of a Capital Junkie, wouldn't require closing factories or dealerships. It's not his final "big deal" as CEO, intent to sell FCA, or a way to elevate his company up the automotive food chain. He claims he wants to fundamentally change the industry and its habit for burning cash. "The horrible part about this, and the thing that I find most offensive, is that the capital consumption rate is duplicative," he said. "It doesn't deliver real value to the consumer and it is in its purest form, economic waste." Other News & Notes Ford Profits dip in first quarter Ford profits fell $65 million to $924 million in the first quarter, hampered by slight dips in revenue and sales.

Top torque-to-weight ratios under $100k, $50k and $25k

Horsepower may steal a lot of headlines, but the always-more-complex torque figure is often a critical one for both the workingman and the motoring playboy. The measure of rotational force represents the twist that can liquefy one's tires or haul one's horse trailer. Good stuff.
It follows then, that as with the horsepower-to-weight list that we assembled for you a few months ago, a list of cars that offer the most pound-feet with the fewest pounds to carry, is an interesting one to break down. Sure, there's a big difference in how the torque is applied from a turbocharged six-cylinder in a Swedish luxury sedan and a massive heavy-duty truck's turbo-diesel. But being the car/stat geeks that we are, we think it's kinda neat that those two vehicles rank near each other where torque and weight intersect.
As with the horsepower list, we've given you figures as pounds per every one pound-foot. Again broken down into broad price categories, we've got a mixed bag of 2014 and 2015 models here, too. Every effort has been made to select the most up-to-date prices and specs, and we've also to omitted some '14 cars that won't be re-upped after the ongoing yearly changeover.