51 Ford F1 Truck on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford decides C-Max shoppers not interested in fuel economy

If you say a car – the Ford C-Max Hybrid, for example – is "fun to drive," can anyone really come up with some empirical evidence against your claim? What about calling it "versatile"? We wonder if Ford has been thinking along these lines when it talks about the green little hatch. Ford is refocusing its sales strategy for the C-Max Hybrid after the model took a sales hit on both sides of the Atlantic recently, Automotive News reports. That sales dropoff may stem from the fact that Ford has had to revise its fuel-economy figures downward for the C-Max twice since last year, most recently in June. That made the company's once-proud fuel-economy comparisons with the Toyota Prius kind of pointless. Ford is going a different route, calling the model versatile (which, to be fair it was also doing a year ago), technologically advanced and fun to drive. Since the C-Max has about 50 more horsepower than the Prius, that last part may be true. Ford representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGreen about the mpg-mention-free advertising direction, but we will update this post if we hear back. Sales of the C-Max Hybrid have suffered in the US. Through September, Ford sold 15,245 C-Max Hybrids, down 36 percent from last year. We shall see if a new focus away from the car's lowered mpg numbers helps. At least Ford can be pleased with sales of the C-Max Energi Plug-in Hybrid, which are up 51 percent compared to 2013.

Ford Mustang GT350, GT350R order guide leaks online

Nary a day after the end of the 2015 Detroit Auto Show media days, a bombshell has been dropped in the form of the order guides for the new Shelby GT350 and GT350R. A draft of the complete guide for both track weapons popped up in the forums of Mustang6G, offering the car's biggest fans the most detailed look yet at how the new models can be outfitted. Arguably the most notable news is that Ford lists both cars not as 2016 models, but as 2015s. Wearing the codes 900A and 920A for the GT350 and GT350R, respectively, Ford lists eight available colors, including standard Mustang shades, like Oxford White, Race Red and Competition Orange, as well as a pair of exclusive hues, in Avalanche Gray and Shadow Black. Notably, neither vehicle can be optioned in the gorgeous Liquid Blue of the GT350R show car. Stripe packages are aplenty on the hottest Mustangs, with black, white and blue stripes available on both models. The R cars, though, will be distinguishable by red accents on its optional stripe groups. The standard model will feature an ebony interior, while the high-performance 'Stang will have an ebony cabin with red accents. Aesthetics aside, this order guide gives us the deepest look yet at the available equipment on both models. Not surprisingly, the options list is quite small, with the standard GT350 offering just two packages, racing stripes and a black roof (which we bet will be mutually exclusive with the stripe jobs). The standard car's Technology Pack adds MagneRide, "heavy-duty" front springs, navigation with Sync 3, leather-wrapped, climate-controlled power seats, satellite radio, dual-zone climate control and selectable driving modes. The Track Pack, meanwhile, adds the same driver-selectable modes, MagneRide and the stiffened front springs as the Tech Pack, along with coolers for the engine oil, trans and diff and a strut-tower brace. These two packs are mutually exclusive. Of course, if you're in the market for the GT350R, your only option is the Electronics Pack, which basically adds features deleted by your high-performance trim, such as a stereo and climate control. On top of that, you'll get Sync 3 with navigation and satellite radio. Head over to the Mustang6G forums for a look at the entire order guide.

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.