2012 Gray Cloth 18s Chrome Sync V6 Ecoboost We Finance 27k Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.

2015 F-150 kick-starts Ford sales

The F-150 had a middling year in 2014, and its sales dipped slightly as Ford transitioned to producing the all-new truck with an aluminum body. But with one factory humming, another on the way and a fuller stock of trucks, 2015 is already shaping up to be a different story. The F-Series posted a 17-percent leap in January, helping to push Ford sales to a 15-percent gain for the month. The F-Series had its best January performance in 11 years with sales of 54,370 trucks last month. Much of this strength comes from the new generation of the F-150. While many of the old model are still being sold off, Ford is rolling out the new version. Just five percent of the F-150's retail sales were the new truck in December, but it was up to 18 percent in January. The increase comes as the first factory that makes the truck, Ford's Dearborn facility, is fully back online. The other F-150 factory, in Kansas City, is still completing its changeover to build the aluminum-bodied truck, and that's expected to be finished in the first quarter of this year. Sales of the truck will still be "tempered a bit" until the Kansas City plant ramps up, Ford sales analyst Erich Merkle said. Ford expects to have a full inventory of F-150s by mid-year. To that end, the company announced plans on Wednesday to add 1,550 jobs to support the F-150, including 900 positions at the Kansas City factory. The remaining jobs will be spread out over sites in metro Detroit. The Dearborn and Kansas City factories collectively will be able to build more than 700,000 F-150s annually. The added headcount also means Ford has reached the maximum number of entry-level workers allowed under its pact with the United Auto Workers. About 300 to 500 employees at several plants in the Midwest will transition to a higher pay rate, and their wages will rise from $19.28 an hour to $28.50 an hour. The F-Series was Ford's hottest seller in January, moving off lots in an average of 12 days. The high-end models, the King Ranch and the Platinum versions, are moving slightly quicker. The average transaction price is also up $2,100 for the F-150 compared to January 2014. "We're really pleased with how the new one is doing on dealer lots," Merkle said. A larger stock of F-150s will allow Ford and its rivals to capitalize on low fuel prices, which have slowed consumers' interest in smaller vehicles.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.