1967 Ford Mustang Gt500 Restomod Fastback on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This Or That: Fiat 500 Abarth vs. Ford Fiesta ST [w/poll]

They're pretty darn similar. And yet our views are oh so different.
If you guys could read the transcripts of our editors' chat room, you'd know that we're a pretty argumentative bunch. It's always good-spirited stuff (well, usually), but when we're not obsessively covering this or that, we're usually fighting about one car being better than another. We're all enthusiasts here, and our automotive tastes run the gamut from the weird and unusual to the decidedly mainstream - we all feel strongly about specific cars in a given segment. While it usually makes for good conversation, if we're passionate enough, it can turn into a tomato-throwing showdown.

Ford confirms 1.5-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine for 2014 Fusion

Earlier this week, reports were swirling 'round the internet about the 2014 Ford Fusion getting a new 1.5-liter three-cylinder EcoBoost engine. That was... half correct. Ford today confirmed that the 2014 Fusion is, in fact, getting a new 1.5-liter EcoBoost mill, but it has four cylinders, not three.
The new 1.5-liter engine will be the fifth EcoBoost powerplant from Ford Motor Company. Initially to be built at the automaker's Craiova, Romania plant, it will also be offered in the Fusion's twin, the Mondeo, in other markets. This engine will debut at the Shanghai Motor Show next month, and the 1.5-liter is of particular importance in the Chinese market - there is significant tax relief in the People's Republic for vehicles powered by engines with a capacity of 1.5 liters or less.
At a media briefing Thursday, Ford declined to divulge exact power or fuel economy numbers, though Joe Bakaj, vice president of powertrain engineering, told Autoblog that power output should be similar to that of the current 1.6-liter inline-four, and that overall efficiency will be "better than the 1.6." Our earlier report stated that the 1.5-liter four will produce 177 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque - losses of 1 hp and 7 lb-ft versus the 1.6-liter engine. Ford states that the 1.5-liter four will feature many of the same technologies used on the company's 1.0-liter EcoBoost inline-three, including an integrated exhaust manifold that recaptures much of the engine's heat.

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.