1998 Ford F-150 Xlt Extended Cab Pickup 3-door 4.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator reportedly facing numerous QC issues

A lengthy report in the Detroit Free Press delves into a range of quality control issues confronting the 2020 Ford Explorer and its luxury platform sibling, the 2020 Lincoln Aviator. Freep says it's been following the issue for two months, tapping various unnamed sources for information on the automaker's unorthodox route to resolution. Seems the problem is Explorers and Aviators leaving the production line at the Chicago Assembly Plant with flaws in areas like the chassis, transmission and suspension, said vehicles trucked to Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant (FRAP) outside of Detroit for repair. The estimates range from 10,000 to 18,000 vehicles affected, numbers so high that Ford has sought help from Roush Engineering in nearby Allen Park, and brought workers and managers from other plants in the Midwest to FRAP to get vehicles repaired and shipped to dealers. Ford hasn't shared the nature of the problems with anyone outside the company, including dealers and customers. Freep's sources are said to include workers who have provided photos of certain vehicles and of tents used to house parts at the FRAP repair site. The Explorer chassis allegedly has an unidentified problem that engineers are using X-rays to diagnose, and the transmission is having problems sensing when it's in park or going into park. Both the Explorer and Aviator have come off the line with HVAC units that only blow hot air. And the Aviator's height-adjustable suspension enters failure mode for unknown reasons. These come on top of quotidian mishaps common to every new vehicle, but that are meant to be sorted in pre-production, like missing emblems and trim pieces. They also come on top of a recall in early August issued for the Explorer and Aviator concerning the instrument cluster and parking brake, and another at the end of August over rear seatbacks that could collapse in a crash. An automaker spokesperson told Freep, "Making updates to preproduction models based on all-new platforms as they roll off the assembly line – is standard industry practice." Except these aren't pre-production, these are early production vehicles that paying customers and dealers are waiting for, and some of the affected vehicles have been pulled off dealer lots. Dealers say they are fine waiting for the trucks to get sorted out, and they'd rather have Ford fix the problems before the SUVs go to customers.

Top horsepower-per-dollar cars in 2017

Bang for the buck. That quasi-scientific statistic is bandied about by motor heads everywhere from classrooms to barrooms, though the truth of the matter is that it's exceedingly complex to measure. A fair performance-per-dollar index would include something like cross-referencing MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) with point-to-point times on a track or driving route, which is obviously hard to do comprehensively. But, for the sheer joy of talking about cars and playing with a big spreadsheet, there's always the horsepower-per-dollar index, which is more straightforward, albeit hilariously flawed. There are vagaries even with this simple formula, of course: MSRP for vehicles can change at a moment's notice, to say nothing of the bottom-line shifting that happens with local deals or showroom negotiation. For this list we're running with the straight MSRP wherever possible, and as recently reported as we can get it. All the vehicles on this list are 2017 models, and all trims are reported where the lowest price and differing power levels intersect. Some choices were made for personal preference and some for sanity, avoiding things like all 48 trim levels of the Ford Transit, all with the same horsepower). If this list were a simple top ten, or even a top fifty, you'd be bored to tears with all the red, white and blue that is represented. Following perfectly with conventional wisdom, American cars really do lead the world where hp/$ is concerned. So, for the sake of variety (and the sheer joy of seeing a minivan 'win' one round of this thing) I've sorted out some top five and bottom five lists for broad power categories. Let's dive in. Less Than 100 Horsepower Okay, okay, this is hardly a category we'll grant you. But we've often tried to click off all the sub-100-hp cars on sale in the US, and making this list gave us an excuse. It also illustrates that none of these smallish vehicles bring cheap horsepower to the table - for that you'll need a motorcycle. The segment-leading Chevy Spark (above) asks just over $139 for each hp, and that Smart Fortwo Electric Drive has hp on sale for about the same price as its very distant family cousin, the Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG (insert your favorite Smart joke here... we know you want to).

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.