2006 Ford Ranger Fx4 Off Road 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Police Interceptors win acceleration war against Dodge, Chevy

Just last month, Ford announced its first-ever non-pursuit-rated version of the Police Interceptor sedan for agencies looking to maximize fuel economy, but that doesn't mean that Ford is giving up on chasing down the bad guys. While the Dodge Charger can lay claim to the fastest lap time at the Grattan Raceway test facility held by the Michigan State Police, the results are now in for the Police Vehicle Evaluation acceleration tests. And Ford's Police Interceptor duo (sedan and utility) came out on top.
In the acceleration tests, Ford says that the Taurus-based PI Sedan with the newly available 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 was the quickest among prospective police cars in both 0-60 and 0-100 mile per hour times. The sedan posted a 0-60 time of 5.66 seconds with all-wheel drive and 5.71 seconds with front-wheel drive, besting V8-powered competitors like the Chevy Caprice and Dodge Charger by more than 0.3 seconds. These rivals close the gap on the AWD sedan in the 0-100 test with the Ford taking 13.5 seconds compared to the Chevy's time of 14.35 and the Dodge's time of 14.7.
As for utility vehicles, the Explorer-based PI Utility, which accounts for 60 percent of Ford's police vehicle sales, essentially went head-to-head with the V8-powered Chevy Tahoe with similar results. Equipped with the new EcoBoost engine option, this big SUV hit 60 mph in just 6.28 seconds and 100 mph in 15.51 seconds compared to times of 8.22 seconds and 21.95 seconds, respectively, for the Tahoe. Other important tests in the PVE include braking and top speed, but while no automakers have stepped up to boast about their numbers in either of these categories, Ford's images show that the V8 Caprice had the highest top speed of the cars at 155 mph while the Tahoe's 139-mph speed made it the fastest utility vehicle.

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.

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.