2006 Ford F-250 Crew Diesel Auto 6-pass Side Steps 74k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Explorer problems gutted third-quarter sales

In early September, the Detroit Free Press published a feature noting numerous problems Ford's having with the 2020 Explorer and 2020 Lincoln Aviator launches. Issues with both SUVs, built at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, were so rife and dire that the automaker was trucking the vehicles 275 miles away to Michigan for repairs. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Explorer's third-quarter sales dropped 48 percent compared to the previous model in 2018, with dealers unable to get enough units on lots for customers. Nor is the snafu over: Automotive News reports that another "batch of about 2,500 Explorers in need of repairs" arrived recently in Michigan, and sales through the first nine months of 2019 are down 31 percent. Sales dips during model changeovers are to be expected as old inventory gets sold down and new production ramps up, but this is different. Ford U.S. sales boss Mark LaNeve told Bloomberg earlier this month, "We’ve got adequate inventory in our stores. For Q4, availability wonÂ’t be an issue. WeÂ’ll be able to hit our stride with Explorer starting now." It's hard to know whether that's true, with thousands of Explorers still piling into Michigan; the batch AN mentioned represents about 5 days of sales during an average month in 2018, before the drawdown and interruptions hampered matters. And when Consumer Reports tested the Ford Explorer it bought this summer, it titled the review, "2020 Ford Explorer drives nicely but has many flaws / Poor interior quality and a high price overshadow the SUV's improvements."   On top of that, the AN piece mentions a new impediment to uncorking the Explorer sales stream: Worker strife in the Chicago plant. Allegedly, "Roving groups of workers are intimidating other employees, creating a hostile environment, the people said. ThatÂ’s driving up turnover and leaving some vehicle assembly unfinished, contributing to the company having to complete the work at the Michigan factory or at dealerships, the people said." Ford's been fined twice before for the same kinds of issues at its plants, once in 1999, again in 2017, but a spokesperson said Ford isn't aware of any such problems now. The pressure otherwise has got to be unpleasant for everyone on the Explorer team, from CEO Jim Hackett down. The automaker was meant to be "turning the corner" in April, but as of now, shares are down, credit rating is down, earnings are down.

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.

Experts wonder if aluminum F-150 gives Ford a real advantage

There's no doubt that Ford is taking a risk in producing the body of its upcoming new F-150 pickup truck in aluminum. What is up for debate, however, is whether aluminum was a wise risk to take in the first place. Wards Auto took the opportunity to poll some experts on the subject of aluminum versus steel in the automotive sector, with somewhat unsurprising results.
Richard Schultz, a project consultant at Ducker Worldwide, which bills itself as "a leading aluminum industry consultant (though they also deal in steels), suggests that the potential drawbacks to aluminum - higher costs, lower supply - aren't really impediments to the auto industry's increased acceptance of the lightweight metal.
Similarly, Randall Scheps, global automotive marketing director for Alcoa, a massive aluminum producer, counters claims that aluminum is less safe for vehicle occupants, suggesting that the use of aluminum can actually increase safety as it could potentially allow for larger vehicles with more crush space than steel.