1995 Ford Ranger Xlt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports declares most and least loved cars [w/video]

Consumer Reports is crunching the numbers from its annual owner-satisfaction survey, and part of that process is finding out how attached drivers are to their cars. CR simply asks readers of models up to three years old if they would buy the same vehicle again in light of their entire ownership experience, and tallies the results. After looking at the responses for about 350,000 vehicles, it turns out that people really love a certain California-built, electrically powered luxury sedan. That's right, this year's the overall winner was the Tesla Model S with a whopping 98 percent of owners saying they would purchase another one (the Model S also won this award last year, with 99 percent satisfaction). The Chevrolet Corvette Stingray came in a close second with 95 percent of drivers hoping to park another one in their garage. A few models weren't quite so favored, though. The Nissan Versa Sedan was the least loved model among its owners; a mere 42 percent said that they would purchase another. The aging Jeep Compass didn't do much better, with just 43 percent of drivers willing to buy the softroader again. On average, about 70 percent of owners say they would buy their car again, and only four cars ranked below 50 percent in CR's findings. Check out the video above to see some of the winners and losers in a few of CR's categories. If you're a subscriber, you can check out the full list on its website. Related Gallery Consumer Reports Most Loved Cars 2014 Related Gallery Consumer Reports Least Loved Cars 2014 News Source: Consumer Reports - sub. req., Consumer Reports via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Mazda Mercedes-Benz Porsche Subaru Tesla Ownership Videos car ownership

Marchionne open to combination with Ford or GM

At the depths of the auto industry implosion, there was widely reported talk that General Motors and Chrysler would be merged into a mighty import-beating behemoth. While such notions clearly never materialized, that doesn't mean the idea is dead. In fact, FCA boss Sergio Marchionne still welcomes the idea of a partnership with either GM or Ford. He responded positively to the idea, calling it "technically feasible," when asked about it at the 2015 Geneva Motor Show, Automotive News reports. "There's bantering that goes on all the time," Marchionne told AN, before quashing suspicions that a plan was in the works by adding that "nothing substantive" was going on. Our favorite black sweater enthusiast isn't quite as interested in the idea of teaming with a foreign manufacturer like PSA Peugeot Citroen, or in the rumored tie-up with Volkswagen, though. That is a shame, particularly in regards to Marchionne's shut down of a partnership with the French, although it isn't necessarily surprising – FCA already consists of eight automakers, and as Sergio told AN, there's really nothing at PSA that could help the company out. What are your thoughts? Is there an obvious project or segment that would benefit from an FCA partnership with Ford or GM? Have your say in Comments. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Marco Bertorello / AFP / Getty Images Chrysler Fiat Ford GM Sergio Marchionne FCA merger

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.