1957 Ford Fairlane Base 4.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford 2Q profit drops 86% as it restructures overseas

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — Ford's net profit tumbled 86% in the second quarter due largely to restructuring costs in Europe and South America. Net income for the April-through-June period dropped to $148 million, or 4 cents per share. Without the charges the company made 28 cents per share. Revenue was flat at $38.9 billion. On average, analysts surveyed by FactSet expected earnings 31 cents per share on revenue of $38.49 billion. Chief Financial Officer Tim Stone says the company had charges of $1.2 billion as it moved to close factories in Europe and South America. He says Ford already is seeing an impact from its global fitness measures that included a reduction of 7,000 white-collar workers. Ford, which released numbers after the markets closed Wednesday, says its results include a $181 million valuation loss on an investment in a software company, trimming 4 cents off adjusted earnings per share. Its stock fell 6.3% in after-hours trading to $9.68. Stone said Ford is in the early stages of its restructuring, but already is seeing improvement in some regions. Free cash flow also improved by 80% to $2.1 billion in the first half of the year, he said. "We're already starting to see some early benefits," he said. "A lot of work to do." The company expects improvement in the second half of the year as more new big SUVs hit dealerships and more of the restructuring takes hold. Ford on Wednesday forecast pretax adjusted earnings of $7 billion to $7.5 billion for all of 2019, compared with $7 billion last year. The company previously had only said that pretax earnings would improve. Full-year adjusted earnings per share are forecast to be $1.20 to $1.35, up from $1.30 in 2018. Previously it did not give per-share guidance. Ford's U.S. sales fell nearly 5% in the second quarter, according to the Edmunds.com auto pricing site, as the company exited most of its passenger car business. But Stone said sales of the new Ford Ranger small pickup offset much of that as its share of the small truck segment rose 14%. Edmunds, which provides content for The Associated Press, said Ford's average vehicle sale price rose 2.8% to $41,328 during the quarter. In North America, Ford's biggest profit center, pretax earnings fell 3% to just under $1.7 billion, which the company blamed on switching its Chicago factory to build new versions of midsize SUVs.

From Expedition to Navigator: our predictions for Lincoln's SUV

In the midst of all the buzz surrounding the new aluminum Ford Expedition and Expedition Max, we remembered the other large SUV the Ford Motor Company showed last year, the Lincoln Navigator concept. And since the Navigator has historically been built on the Expedition platform, we figured there's no better time to focus some of our predictions for the big Lincoln. First off, let's take a look at design. Having seen the new Expedition, we're fairly confident that the Navigator will look almost exactly like its concept. The strong similarities between two mean the Expedition serves as a preview of what a production Navigator will look like. For example, both vehicles' greenhouses we can see that the shape of the C-pillars are nearly identical. The only difference is that the Expedition's are painted body color, while the Navigator's are painted black. Additionally, the character line running along the top of the doors on both vehicles is roughly the same height. The same goes for the more subtle crease near the bottom of the doors. We also see no reason why Lincoln wouldn't use the full width taillights, fender vent, and grille treatment it used on the concept. Those are all easy design changes to create differentiation, and they're all right inline with the cues set by the Continental. View 15 Photos For powertrain, we're pretty certain the 400-horsepower 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 previewed on the concept is a certainty now. The Expedition and Expedition Max will be offered with a 3.5-liter EcoBoost as well, so we know it will fit. We expect the Expedition's engine will produce 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque as it does in the F-150. That's less power than the Navigator concept, but it would be reasonable to make the production Navigator a bit more powerful than its lowly Ford brethren to help justify the increased price tag. Towing capacity will probably be about the same between the Ford and Lincoln, which should be something over 9,000 pounds. The Navigator will probably use the same two-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive drivetrains, too. Inside is where the Expedition and Navigator will likely differ the most, particularly in seating. The Expedition offers seating for up to eight with an available second-row bench seat, and the Navigator concept had captain's chairs for every row. We're expecting the Navigator will only offer second-row captain's chairs since the cramped third row would be a waste of nice buckets.

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.