1999 Ford Mustang Gt Convertible 2-door 4.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Ford to show special edition Raptor on April 9

There are precious few details, but what we do know is that Ford will be revealing images of "appearance upgrades" for a special-edition 2014 F-150 SVT Raptor on April 9. The slideshow will happen during a Motor Press Guild luncheon at Ford's Design Center Showroom in Irvine, California.
Without photos or further details, we're left to wonder about the extent of these changes, but aren't expecting anything too significant given the venue. Ford is understood to be revealing a next-generation F-150 with a big weight loss - as much as 700 pounds - for 2014, though it isn't yet clear if that's the truck's model year or simply its on-sale year. For at least a couple of years, Ford forums have been suggesting changes will come with the 2014 Raptor, so there could still be a bigger surprise in store. Either way, we'll know what all this means in a little more than a week. The press release below has the official details, but for the moment, we'll content ourselves by ogling the 2013 model above.

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.