2024 Ford Ranger Lariat on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit Three to lose dominance of North American auto output in 2017

DETROIT — North American vehicle production by the unionized Detroit Three automakers will fall behind the combined North American output of Tesla and automakers from Europe and Asia for the first time this year, IHS Markit forecast on Wednesday. In 2017, the Detroit Three could build 8.6 million vehicles in North America, while Tesla and foreign automakers build 8.7 million, IHS Markit analyst Joe Langley said. By 2024, the gap will widen, with Asian and European automakers and Tesla combining to build about 9.8 million vehicles in North America. General Motors, Ford and the North American operations of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV will combine to build 8.1 million vehicles, down 6 percent from this year. Mexico is on track to increase its share of North American vehicle production, Langley said, moving to 4.5 million vehicles a year by 2024 from about 4 million vehicles currently. The milestone for the growth of Tesla and foreign automakers in North America comes as the Trump administration is pushing to limit imports of vehicles from Mexico in negotiations to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement. The declining share of North American vehicle production for the Detroit automakers also challenges U.S. and Canadian unions that represent their workers. Canadian workers are on strike at a GM factory in Ontario to protest the automaker's decision to cut jobs and move to Mexico some production of sport utility models built there. Foreign automakers over the past year have announced plans for a wave of new or expanded plants in North America, while Tesla is ramping up to build as many as 500,000 cars a year at its plant in Fremont, Calif. Often referred to as "transplants," the foreign-owned factories are poised to become the mainstream of the North American auto industry. Automakers are increasingly using factories in China or Mexico to build vehicles that used to be assembled solely in the United States, Langley said. He cited as an example Ford's decision to shift production of the Focus small car for North America to a Chinese assembly plant. Reporting by Joseph WhiteRelated Video: Image Credit: Reuters Plants/Manufacturing Chrysler Ford GM

Stock Miata beats bunch of high-powered cars in wet 1/4-mile drag race

When is a stock, 167-horsepower Mazda MX-5 Miata quicker than a Chevrolet Corvette, Ford Mustang, Lamborghini Gallardo, Lotus Elise and a Porsche 911? When it's raining. Sort of.
Mazda Canada arranged a unique drag race to show off the fact that the Miata's optional power retractable folding hardtop can go from top-down to top-up in just 12 seconds flat. In this video, all six cars line up for a drag race, and it starts to rain (well, sort of - but you'll have to watch the video all the way to the end to see what we mean). The green flag is waved, and the timer starts as soon as the convertibles begin to put their tops up. But because the Miata's roof mechanism gets the car's roof back up a full 5.1 seconds quicker than the second-place car, the Mazda gets a serious advantage off the line for the actual drag race.
It's a fun video. And while we've spoiled the results (come on, the video was uploaded by Mazda, you knew the Miata was going to win), be sure to see how it all unfolds, below.

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.