2012 Ford Fusion Sel... Low Miles.. Needs Work on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

New York Mets outfielder turns spring training into his personal car show

New York Mets outfielder Yoenis Cespedes is known for his wide range of talents. He can hit for power, average, has good speed, and is solid in the field. His car collection is equally versatile and diverse, and it's been on display this week at spring training. Every day has brought a different car, and it has his teammates and the media atwitter. Cespedes rolled up Wednesday to the Mets facility in Port St. Lucie in a Lamborghini Aventador. It's black with blue trim. Anthony DiComo with MLB.com tweeted this: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. ESPN's Darren Rovell tweeted the Lambo has a custom exhaust that cost $80,000 and shoots out flames. Of course, that's already old news. His Alfa Romeo showed up today, too. Apparently Mets infielder Wilmer Flores has been driving it. That's an ultra-rare 8C Competizione, brought to you by Robert Brender of SNY.TV. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. The Italian delights are stunning, but his Tuesday arrival was arguably the craziest: a Polaris Slingshot. DiComo captured this. It's customized with gaudy wire wheels, red accents, and Cespedes' No. 52 on the hood. Subtle. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Only in this fleet would Monday's ride appear pedestrian. It was 'only' an F-250. It was raised on huge wheels, had a custom grille, and towered over that Maserati behind it. Jon Santucci of Scripps newspapers observed it. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. At this rate, we should probably skip Geneva and get credentialed for Mets spring training. Cespedes signed a three-year $75-million contract with the Mets in the off-season. He's also played for the Oakland Athletics, Boston Red Sox, and Detroit Tigers. Related Video: Image Credit: Getty Images Celebrities Design/Style Ford Lamborghini Performance baseball

NHTSA advances investigation of Ford Crown Victoria headlights

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into reports of suddenly failing headlights on 517,945 examples of the 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. The government started looking into this problem in April when the North Carolina Consumers Council filed a defect petition with the agency. Now, the inquiry has moved to the next step. According to NHTSA's documentation (as a PDF), it examined its own database and worked with Ford to come up with a total of 3,609 complaints of the front lighting control module suddenly failing. When this happens, drivers lose the low-beam headlights, but the high-beams can be used by holding the stalk. Sometimes turning the switch off and on fixes the issue. Additionally, there are 15 allegations of crashes, and one reported shoulder injury. NHTSA's preliminary evaluations "evaluate the scope, frequency, and consequence of the alleged defect" and don't necessarily lead to a recall. NHTSA looked into this problem once before in 2008 and 2009 and decided that a recall wasn't necessary. Ford also extended the warranty on the front lighting control module for these vehicles. INVESTIGATION Subject : Loss of headlights Date Investigation Opened: AUG 10, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15028 Component(s): EXTERIOR LIGHTING All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2003-2005 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 2003-2005 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: After receiving a defect petition (DP15002) concerning the loss of headlights and other exterior lighting in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure. The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066). Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off. In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.