2013 Ford Fusion Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalls Explorer and Lincoln MKC for fire hazard

The Basics: Ford will recall 5,536 examples of the 2016 Explorer and 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC. The Explorers have build dates between October 20, 2014, and January 28, 2016, at the Chicago Assembly Plant. The MKCs are from between November 25, 2013, and January 25, 2016, at the Louisville Assembly Plant. In total, there are 3,129 total affected examples of the 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 examples of the 2016 Ford Explorer. Of these, 1,543 are in the US and 3,993 are in Canada. The Problem: The combination of the engine block design and the block heater in these vehicles can cause the part to overheat when plugged in. Injuries/Deaths: None reported, but there are two cases of underhood fires in Canada. If you own one: Ford will begin notifying owners during the week of May 16, company spokesperson John Cangany tells Autoblog. Related Video: Ford issues safety recall for certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to replace engine block heaters Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 5,500 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles to remove the heaters and replace them with an updated design. The engine block design, coupled with the particular block heater installed in these vehicles, causes the unit to be susceptible to overheating when the vehicle is parked and the block heater is plugged in –increasing the risk of an underhood fire. Ford is aware of two reports of underhood fires in Canada, but is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this issue. Affected vehicles include certain 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC vehicles built at Louisville Assembly Plant, Nov. 25, 2013 through Jan. 25, 2016 and certain 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles built at Chicago Assembly Plant, Oct. 20, 2014 through Jan. 28, 2016. There are 5,536 vehicles affected by the issue, including 3,129 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC and 2,407 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles, with 1,543 of the affected vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 3,993 in Canada. Dealers will remove and replace the engine block heater with an updated design and, if needed, replace the cord at no cost to the customer.

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.

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.