1923 Ford Model T Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Transit

As a segment, fullsize vans are stealth-fighter invisible on most consumers' radar. Visit a dealership for any of the four brands that offer them and you'll be lucky to find even one on display. These are commercial vehicles primarily, even more so than pickup trucks. Vans are the shuttles for plumbers, caterers, carpenters, concrete layers, masons, electricians, florists and flooring, and a huge part of this country's productivity is accomplished using them. At the moment, Ford is the 800-pound gorilla in that room - fully 41 percent of commercial vehicles wear a Blue Oval. So when Ford announced three years ago it would be ditching its commercial bread-and-butter E-Series, it meant the Transit that would be replacing the Econoline had huge, 53-year-old shoes to fill.
We were still a bit nostalgic about Econoline vans going away until going directly from the Transit first drive in Kansas City to an E-350 airport shuttle. Climb up through the Econoline's tiny double doors and bang your head on the opening, crouch all the way to your seat then enjoy a loud, rattle-prone, creaky, harsh ride on beam-hard seats while struggling to see out the low windows. This is an experience nearly every traveler has had. By comparison, the Transits we'd just spent two days with were every bit of the four decades better they needed to be. It cannot be understated just how much better the Transit is in every single way. The load floor is barely more than knee high. There's a huge side door, and hitting your head on a door opening is nearly impossible. Stand up all the way if you're under six-foot, six-inches - no more half-hunching down the aisle. There are windows actually designed to be looked out of. The ride is buttery smooth, no booming vibration from un-restrained metal panels and no squeaks. Conversations can be held at normal levels rather than yelling over the roar of an ancient V8. The seats are comfortable. The AC is cold. There are cupholders.
Enough anecdote-laying, what's in a Transit? We're talking about a very fullsized unibody van that's enjoyed a 49-year history in Ye Olde Europe. This latest iteration is part of the "One Ford" initiative, so it was designed as a global offering from the get-go, eschewing the body-on-frame construction the E-Series has used since 1975. Instead, the Transit integrates a rigid ladder frame into an overall frame construction made of high-strength cold-rolled and boron steel. The suspension is a simple but well-tuned Macpherson strut array up front with a rear solid axle and leaf springs.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.

The biggest gas-guzzlers of 2024: 'The Meanest List' is the opposite of greenest cars

In some circles — especially some automotive circles — bigger is better. This explains the Hummer, for example. In its so-called “Meanest List” of a dozen models, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) makes no apologies for berating “the worst-performing mass market automobiles” sold in 2024 in the U.S. The most diminutive car on the list is a Chevy Corvette Z06. At the top of this particular heap is the Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, a gas-powered SUV that the environmental agency says was “the worst-performing vehicle of the more than 1,200 models assessed by Greener Cars and has an annual fuel cost over $4,000.” Not to mention its MSRP of around $184,000. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63 Gas 20 $184,000 $4,242 2 Ram 1500 TRX 4x4 Gas 22 $98,335 $3,819 3 Ford F150 Raptor R Gas 24 $79,975 $3,777 4 Cadillac Escalade V Gas 26 $152,295 $3,388 5 Dodge Durango SRT Gas 26 $74,995 $3,332 6 Jeep Wrangler 4dr 4X4 Gas 27 $35,895 $3,260 7 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 4x4 Gas 28 $91,945 $3,058 8 Mercedes-Benz G550 Gas 28 $143,000 $3,186 9 GMC Hummer EV SUV EV 29 $98,845 $1,746 10 GMC Sierra Gas 29 $37,700 $3,069 11 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Gas 30 $114,395 $3,169 12 Mercedes-Benz Maybach S680 Gas 30 $234,300 $3,031 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In terms of numbers, the dirty dozen of the meanest includes seven SUVs and three trucks. Lonely at the middle of the list is the sole electric, the GMC Hummer EV, which weighs in at 9,000 pounds. The council notes that “though EVs have lower emissions than similarly sized gasoline models, the Hummer demonstrates that size and efficiency, not just fuel source, are important factors in a carÂ’s environmental impact.” ItÂ’s also worth reminding prospective buyers that the average fuel cost of a vehicle on the “Greenest List” eats up only a fifth of the fuel cost of a vehicle on the Meanest List, “showing that greener options can also be more affordable.” The ACEEE also put out a "Greener List" of efficient gasoline and hybrid cars that don't require plugging in.  By the Numbers Green Cadillac Chevrolet Dodge Ford GMC Hummer Jeep Maybach Mercedes-Benz RAM Emissions Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Truck SUV Electric Hybrid