2006 Ford Freestar Base Mini Cargo Van 4-door 3.9l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford and Mercedes join Renault in French emissions investigation

The French government is investigating certain models from Ford, Mercedes-Benz, and Renault because they allegedly produce more nitrogen oxide than the country's pollution rules allow, according to Automotive News, citing a French newspaper. After VW's emissions scandal, French regulators began checking more vehicles for evidence of defeat devices and excessive real-world pollution. According to Automotive News, the Mercedes S350 allegedly showed inconsistent results across these tests, and a Ford C-Max had NOx levels five times over the limit. The Renault Captur crossover, Espace, and an unnamed utility vehicle also had results that were too high. The French testing for this investigation includes an on-road emissions check that's not part of the EU's normal evaluations, which some automakers claim is unfair. "Unofficial on-road testing has varying conditions and can produce significantly different results," a Ford of Europe spokesman told Automotive News. Renault representatives met with French officials on January 18 to explain the situation. The company later submitted a plan to recall 15,800 examples of the diesel Captur, and said it would offer a voluntary software upgrade for about 700,000 other vehicles, according to Automotive News. Representatives from Ford and Mercedes will meet with the government soon, too. Renault's stock price plunged last week after investors heard that French regulators searched three of the automaker's sites as part of the emissions investigation. The stockholders feared an environmental scandal like the one currently embroiling Volkswagen. There's one major difference – as of now, there's no evidence Renault equipped any of the polluting models with defeat devices. Related Video:

Who sold the most heavy-duty pickups in 2012? PickupTrucks.com investigates

Domestic manufacturers enjoyed a good year for heavy-duty pickup sales in 2012. PickupTrucks.com has taken a close look at exactly how those sales broke down between each manufacturer and between three-quarter and one-ton pickups. Ford sold some 67,786 F-250 Super Duty models last year with the Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD falling just behind at 56,359 units. The Ram 2500 HD came in third at 41,918, while the GMC Sierra 2500 HD earned itself fourth place with 27,616 deliveries. While Ford held onto the top spot in the one-ton market, Ram easily nailed down second place by selling more 3500 HD models last year than General Motors sold Silverado 3500 HD and Sierra 3500 HD trucks combined.
So, did GM manage to sell more trucks than Ford with its two brands? Very nearly. Ford sold a total of 119,338 heavy-duty pickups to GM's 111,555. Ram, meanwhile, moved a distant 77,583. But perhaps more interesting is the diesel take rate in this segment. PickupTrucks.com says 80 percent of all domestic one-ton trucks roll from the dealer lot with a turbo-diesel under the hood. Head over to the site for a closer look at the breakdown.

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.