2012 - Ford F-150 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Next SVT Mustang may axe Shelby name, go naturally aspirated

Following our first glimpse at the 2015 Ford Mustang out on the road, the fine folks at Road and Track have divulged some details on what the Blue Oval's next pony might have in store. We've already seen that the car will get some very sleek, Evos-inspired design cues, and an independent rear suspension is indeed in store. These new details, however, concern the muscle car's beating heart.
For starters, the base Ford coupe is expected to carry on with V6 power, likely from the same 3.7-liter unit found in today's car. From there, R&T says the next step up will be a four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, likely displacing 2.3 liters, putting out as much as 350 horsepower. Of course, a Mustang wouldn't be a Mustang without V8 thrust, and R&T states that the 5.0-liter Coyote V8 will continue on into the 2015 car, making something like 450 horsepower.
But it's at the high end of the Mustang range where things will, reportedly, get very, very interesting. Road & Track claims that the top-shelf 'Stang will likely lose the supercharger from its engine, producing a metric crap-ton of naturally aspirated grunt instead. Additionally, the SVT-fettled Mustang will likely be dropping its Shelby moniker, in favor of "a name you're familiar with," according to the magazine (you know, like, Cobra).

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.

Ford rethinking vehicle launch strategy

With a new boss at the helm, Ford is looking at new ways to improve its vehicle launches in North America to prevent recent issues that have popped up with models like the Lincoln MKZ, Ford Escape and Ford Fusion. Speaking with Automotive News, Ford's new president of the Americas, Joe Hinrichs, revealed a few ways the automaker plans to avoid early build issues such as the engine fires on certain 2013 Escape and Fusion models and months-long delays for customers to receive their MKZs.
It sounds like the root of the problems may have been Ford's relationship with suppliers compounded by the fact that the product surge came on the heels of the recent industry-crippling recession, and in the AN article, Hinrichs says improvements are being made to reduce problems during the launch of new or redesigned models. Three such improvements that were implemented during the first quarter of this year including more rigorous quality comparisons, better use of computer technology to catch major problems sooner and hiring engineers to work closer with suppliers.