1963 Ford Falcon Sports Futura Convertible **no Reserve!** 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.

Car companies used to cook up sales with recipe books

The evolution of automotive marketing has undergone a number of strange phases. Few, though, match the strangeness of the 1930s to 1950s, when automotive marketers turned to cookbooks as a means of promoting their vehicles. Yes, cookbooks. We can't make this stuff up, folks.
This bizarre trend led to General Motors distributing cookbooks under the guise of its then-subsidiary Frigidaire. Ford, meanwhile, offered a compilation of recipes from Ford Credit Employees (shown above). The cookbook-craze wasn't limited to domestic manufacturers, though. As The Detroit News discovered, both Rolls-Royce and Volkswagen got in on the trend, although not until the 1970s.
The News has the full story on this strange bit of marketing. Head over and take a look.

Ford nets $5.7B in 2012, $1.6B in fourth quarter

Ford brought in $5.7 billion in net income during 2012, which is around $307 million less than one year prior. Even so, the automaker closed out 2012 with the highest pre-tax profit for a single quarter in nearly 10 years, earning $1.7 billion in the fourth quarter thanks largely to a higher-than-average truck mix in the US. That's a jump of $577 million over 2011. Likewise, that translated into fourth quarter income of $1.6 billion. All told, Ford set a full-year pre-tax profit record in 2012. But that doesn't necessarily mean everything is rosy in the land of the Blue Oval.
Like every other manufacturer, 2012 saw Ford get hammered in the European Union, where a deep economic recession continues to drive down consumer confidence. The automaker lost more than $700 million in Europe, and saw full revenue of $26.6 billion in 2012. That's a decline of $7.2 billion compared to last yea. Ford says the market for new vehicles in Europe has contracted to 13.5 million units, the lowest number in 17 years. You can read the full press release below for more information.