1997 Ford F-350 Xl Crew Cab Pickup 4-door 7.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings

Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.

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.

2016 Ford Explorer revealed with new 2.3-liter EcoBoost

A 2.3L EcoBoost four-cylinder takes over where the old 2.0 left off, making 270 hp and 300 lb-ft.
Right now, around 23 percent of all Ford vehicles sold in the United States is a utility vehicle. By 2020, Ford expects that figure to increase all the way to 29 percent. Put simply, SUVs and crossovers are very big business at Ford. So, when it comes time to update the Explorer, Ford's original sport utility vehicle, you can be sure that a whole heck of a lot of effort goes into the process.