2009 Ford Ranger Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Uber hopes facilities in Detroit will help shape its autonomous future

Hot off the heels of unleashing its fleet of self-driving vehicles in Pittsburgh, PA, Uber announced plans to open a new facility in the Detroit, MI area, reports Automotive News. The new facility was announced at an event hosted by Society of Automotive Engineers in Detroit, MI. Uber's vice president of global vehicle programs Sherif Marakby revealed the news, reports Automotive News. The facility is meant to help the ride-sharing company collaborate with suppliers and automakers in the area. There's no word on where Uber will build the new facility or how big it will be, as those factors have yet to be determined. Just like Pittsburgh, PA, Detroit, MI could become another testing ground for the ride-sharing company. The latest move to open a facility in the Detroit area comes after Uber offered users in Pittsburgh the chance to ride in one of its autonomous vehicle as it looks to gain vital real-world testing. Uber is utilizing a fleet of modified Ford Fusions. Earlier this year in April, the automaker announced a partnership with Google, Lyft, Uber, and Volvo to develop autonomous cars. A new facility in Detroit would strengthen the partnership and help Uber, as well as Ford put autonomous vehicles on the road faster. Related Video: News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: AOL Green Ford Volvo Transportation Alternatives Technology Emerging Technologies Autonomous Vehicles Detroit Uber taxi Lyft ridesharing facility

Average transaction prices climb to a record $36,270 in January

The automotive sector made a hash of the numbers last month, a mess of pluses and minuses clogging the transaction-price charts according to Kelley Blue Book. The overall industry rose one percent, even though buyers bought fewer cars and light vehicles in January 2018 vs 2017 using the selling-day adjusted rate. Due to January transaction prices rising to $36,270, a record for January, the value of new vehicles sold climbed more than $1 billion compared to January 2017. KBB's transaction prices don't include customer incentives, which changes the complexion slightly; average incentive spending rose to just over ten percent. The average transaction price in December 2017 was $36,756, so January dropped a bit - nothing unexpected, with the month annually blamed for "January doldrums." More revealing is the fact that the average transaction price in January 2017 was $34,910. This year's plumped-up figure came courtesy of the continued shift to crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's read an automotive blog in the past 20 years. That category comprised nearly 70 percent of new vehicle sales for the month. Some manufacturers profited more than others, though. Fiat Chrysler managed 12.8 percent fewer sales in January compared year-on-year, but the company's vehicles sold for $1,300 more. The Ford brand suffered a 6.3-percent dip in sales, but brand transaction prices increased $2,000, while a Lincoln sold for $8,700 more on average. General Motors sold more cars and sold them for more money; overall GM transaction prices rose four percent, or $1,270, while a GMC traded hands for seven-percent more than in January 2017 and a Cadillac got $2,300 more on average. Of KBB's listed automakers, the Volkswagen Group got the most of out its customers, transaction prices rising at the German automaker by 5.6 percent to $42,243 in January 2018 compared to a year earlier. American Honda followed with a 4.3-percent increase to $28,991, GM in third at 4.1 percent to $40,313. Find your next car at Autoblog using our new and used car listings or the Car Finder tool. Broken out by segment, minivans rocked the table, transaction prices leaping by 7.9 percent to $35,380 compared to January a year earlier. Luxury cars boasted the next-highest rise, at 3.6 percent to $58,533.

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.