Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

2014 Se New 1.6l I4 16v Automatic Fwd Sedan Premium on 2040-cars

Year:2014 Mileage:5 Color: Ingot Silver Metallic
Location:

Mac Haik Southway Ford, 7979 I4 35 S, San Antonio, TX, 78224,

Mac Haik Southway Ford, 7979 I4 35 S, San Antonio, TX, 78224,
Advertising:

Auto blog

Consumer Reports no longer recommends Honda Civic

Mon, Oct 24 2016

Consumer Reports annual Car Reliability Survey is out, and yes, there are some big surprises. First and foremost? The venerable publication no longer recommends the Honda Civic. In fact, aside from the walking-dead CR-Z and limited-release Clarity fuel-cell car, the Civic is the only Honda to miss out on CR's prestigious nod. At the opposite end there's a surprise as well – Toyota and Lexus remain the most reliable brands on the market, but Buick cracked the top three. That's up from seventh last year, and the first time for an American brand to stand on the Consumer Reports podium. Mazda's entire lineup earned Recommended checks as well. Consumer Reports dinged the Civic for its "infuriating" touch-screen radio, lack of driver lumbar adjustability, the limited selection of cars on dealer lots fitted with Honda's popular Sensing system, and the company's decision to offer LaneWatch instead of a full-tilt blind-spot monitoring system. Its score? A lowly 58. The Civic isn't the only surprise drop from CR's Recommended ranks. The Audi A3, Ford F-150, Subaru WRX/STI, and Volkswagen Jetta, GTI, and Passat all lost the Consumer Reports' checkmark. On the flipside, a number of popular vehicles graduated to the Recommended ranks, including the BMW X5, Chevrolet Camaro, Corvette, and Cruze, Hyundai Santa Fe, Porsche Macan, and Tesla Model S. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the hilariously recall-prone Ford Escape getting a Recommended check – considering the popularity of Ford's small crossover, this is likely a coup for the brand, as it puts the Escape on a level playing field with the Recommended Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Nissan Rogue. While Ford is probably happy to see CR promote the Escape, the list wasn't as kind for every brand. For example, of the entire Fiat Chrysler Automobiles catalog, the ancient Chrysler 300 was the only car to score a check – there wasn't a single Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, or Ram on the list. That hurts. FCA isn't alone at the low end, either. GMC, Jaguar Land Rover, Mini, and Mitsubishi don't have a vehicle on CR's list between them, while brands like Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Nissan, Lincoln, Infiniti, and Cadillac only have a few models each. You can check out Consumer Reports entire reliability roundup, even without a subscription, here.

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost loses big power on 87 octane

Mon, Jan 5 2015

The 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is a pretty potent package on paper. With 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, it boasts better performance numbers than the 3.7-liter V6, but with better fuel economy as an added benefit. However, if you're in the market for one of these boosted 'Stangs, you should probably keep in mind that it really prefers to gulp premium, 93-octane fuel. It can drink 87-octane swill in a pinch, but you're going to find significantly less power underfoot when pulling away. While it's not shocking that the ponies are dialed back with a lower grade of gasoline, an alleged page from a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang 6G purports to show just how much power is lost, though. According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque. In speaking with Autoblog, Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost: First Ride View 20 Photos News Source: Mustang 6GImage Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL, Ford, Mustang 6G Ford Technology Convertible Coupe Performance ecoboost ford mustang ecoboost

Ford idling Michigan Assembly Plant to trim Focus, C-Max supply

Tue, 22 Oct 2013

Ford will be putting the brakes on production at its Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, MI, idling production during the weeks of October 28 and December 16. Ford is citing the first drop in US sales in 27 months, a 4.2-percent dip in September, as the impetus for trimming their supplies, according to Automotive News.
Ford's deft management of its supplies has been part of its success over the years, and seeing supplies of Focus and C-Max, the two vehicles built at MAP, rise from 58 and 108 days, respectively, to 71 and 122 days over the span of a month was apparently all that was need to justify the trimming. As AN points out, the rule of thumb for many automakers is to maintain a 60-day supply of vehicles.
"Ford has been focused on keeping their pricing in check. Their operating margin is in double digits. Nobody else is there and they're obviously very proud of that," Alan Baum, an auto analyst with Baum & Associates told AN. Keeping the supply chain operating smoothly and not increasing supplies too much is crucial to that healthy profit margin. After all, a large supply lowers prices ,which, in turn, cuts profit. So while this news might not be great for employees at MAP, who now have an extra two weeks of vacation time, it's far from a sign of problems in Dearborn. Quite the opposite, actually.