1 Owner Ford Taurus Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost

Earlier this week, Ford invited us to Charlotte, NC, to ride in an all-new 2015 Mustang fitted with its turbocharged 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder. It's the first forced-induction, four-cylinder ponycar for the Blue Oval since the sun set on the 1986 Mustang SVO. We jumped at the opportunity, as only a handful of people have ever been in the passenger seat of this new car, and most automotive media won't get as close as we did until this fall.
As we revealed in our Deep Dive, Ford will slot this new turbocharged four as premium powerplant between its naturally aspirated 3.7-liter V6 and the naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V8. At last mention, the automaker said the direct-injected, all-aluminum engine will develop 305 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, returning the best fuel economy of the three powerplants in the process. History buffs will note that those figures are appreciably stouter than the 200 horses and 240 lb-ft that the '86 SVO realized out of the same displacement, and the latter's figures were hugely impressive at the time. On paper, the new EcoBoost four looks to be a good fit for most owners who want to balance performance with efficiency - we were eager to see how it felt from the passenger seat.
Riding Notes

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

May 2016: FCA wins, Ford and GM stumble on weak car volumes

The May 2016 sales numbers are in, and it looks as though FCA is getting some vindication for boldly cancelling two slow-selling car models. Meanwhile, Ford saw overall sales dip and GM's May volume took a big dive versus the same month in 2015. While Marchionne's decision to axe the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart has drawn criticism as being short-sighted, it's working for FCA so far. Although the Dart and 200 aren't out of production yet and no capacity has been shifted to crossover or trucks, May's numbers show that the emphasis on Jeep and Ram models makes sense right now. FCA's US sales rose 1 percent last month compared to May 2015, putting the year-to-date total at 955,186 vehicles, an increase of 6 percent compared to the same period last year. Standouts included the Jeep Renegade, Compass, and Patriot, and the Fiat 500X. Ram pickup sales were down 3 percent. And your fun fact is that Alfa Romeo sales were up precisely 10 percent, for a total of 44 4Cs sold versus 40 in the same month last year. At FoMoCo, the Ford brand took a hit to the tune of 6.4 percent from May 2015 to 2016, registering 226,190 sales last month. Lincoln showed improvement on its modest numbers, going from 9,174 to 9,807, a 6.9 percent increase. Overall, Ford was down 5.9 percent for the month to 235,997; despite the slump, year-to-date total Ford sales are up 4.2 percent to 1,112,939. Strong sellers included Escape, Expedition, F-Series, and Transit - big stuff. Most small and/or efficient models (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, C-Max) saw sales slides. Fusion sales were also down, likely due to effects of model changeover to the freshened 2017 model. Ford has promised four new crossovers and SUVs by 2020 and if things keep trending this way the company will be able to sell them, but things could change in the next four years. GM saw the worst of it for domestic brands. Retail and fleet sales were down for each of the four divisions, with the May 2016 total dropping 18 percent to 240,450 vehicles. GM's year-to-date sales are down 5.0 percent in 2016 to 1,183,705. Both the Sierra and Silverado were down significantly, and the majority of Chevy, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac nameplates saw sales decreases, with both small cars and larger utilities included. Not even big stuff could help GM this month, it seems. We'll have more on the rest of the industry's May sales as those figures trickle in.