2014 Ford Fusion Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study

May 2016: FCA wins, Ford and GM stumble on weak car volumes

The May 2016 sales numbers are in, and it looks as though FCA is getting some vindication for boldly cancelling two slow-selling car models. Meanwhile, Ford saw overall sales dip and GM's May volume took a big dive versus the same month in 2015. While Marchionne's decision to axe the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart has drawn criticism as being short-sighted, it's working for FCA so far. Although the Dart and 200 aren't out of production yet and no capacity has been shifted to crossover or trucks, May's numbers show that the emphasis on Jeep and Ram models makes sense right now. FCA's US sales rose 1 percent last month compared to May 2015, putting the year-to-date total at 955,186 vehicles, an increase of 6 percent compared to the same period last year. Standouts included the Jeep Renegade, Compass, and Patriot, and the Fiat 500X. Ram pickup sales were down 3 percent. And your fun fact is that Alfa Romeo sales were up precisely 10 percent, for a total of 44 4Cs sold versus 40 in the same month last year. At FoMoCo, the Ford brand took a hit to the tune of 6.4 percent from May 2015 to 2016, registering 226,190 sales last month. Lincoln showed improvement on its modest numbers, going from 9,174 to 9,807, a 6.9 percent increase. Overall, Ford was down 5.9 percent for the month to 235,997; despite the slump, year-to-date total Ford sales are up 4.2 percent to 1,112,939. Strong sellers included Escape, Expedition, F-Series, and Transit - big stuff. Most small and/or efficient models (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, C-Max) saw sales slides. Fusion sales were also down, likely due to effects of model changeover to the freshened 2017 model. Ford has promised four new crossovers and SUVs by 2020 and if things keep trending this way the company will be able to sell them, but things could change in the next four years. GM saw the worst of it for domestic brands. Retail and fleet sales were down for each of the four divisions, with the May 2016 total dropping 18 percent to 240,450 vehicles. GM's year-to-date sales are down 5.0 percent in 2016 to 1,183,705. Both the Sierra and Silverado were down significantly, and the majority of Chevy, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac nameplates saw sales decreases, with both small cars and larger utilities included. Not even big stuff could help GM this month, it seems. We'll have more on the rest of the industry's May sales as those figures trickle in.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.