2007 Ford Mustang Base Convertible 2-door 4.0l Low Mileage - <28,000 Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalling nearly 700k Escape CUVs, C-Max hybrids over two separate safety issues

Poor Escape. Ever since its launch in 2012, Ford's small CUV has been the subject of many, many, many recalls. And today, The Detroit News is reporting that Ford is adding two more recalls to the 2013-14 model year Escape's permanent record, one of them also involves the C-Max hybrid hatchback.
The first recall, covering 692,500 Escape and C-Max vehicles, is due to a software glitch that could cause the airbags - specifically, the safety canopy - to not deploy in a timely fashion during rollover crashes. According to the News, Ford says no crashes or injuries have been reported in relation to this problem.
The second recall, covering 692,700 Escapes, is related to the door handles. The News reports that the exterior door handles could open while the vehicle is in motion, and could also fail to latch properly. Once again, no crashes or injuries have occurred because of this. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration has not issued an official notice on either recall as of this writing.

Ford will probably never offer two RS models at the same time

Autocar has some sour news for fans of go-fast Ford products. According to Roelant de Waard, Ford's president of marketing in Europe, the automaker will probably never offer more than one RS performance model for sale at the same time. That statement runs contrary earlier rumblings that suggested Ford would launch its next-generation Focus RS in 2015 and follow the hatch with a spate of other vehicles with an RS badge. But de Waard has made it clear that Ford of Europe is now focused on squarely on the next Mustang, even though there may be more RS models on the way eventually.
"What is clear is that the RS shouldn't be a series, or a car badge that we have in our portfolio all the time. It is an extreme car - something more than ST," he said.
That philosophy makes plenty of sense. We loved the old Focus RS - shown above in RS500 trim - because it was generally bonkers and plenty exclusive. Diluting either aspect is sure to end in disappointment for everyone involved.

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.