1999 Ford E-series Van Regency E-150 Power Handicap Wheelchair Ramp on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Ford readying 2015 F-150 drift truck for SEMA

Between the Mustangs you'd find in Formula D and the Fiestas in the Global and World rallycross championships, there's no shortage of Ford drift cars on the scene. But at the upcoming SEMA Show in Las Vegas, the Blue Oval automaker intends to show off a different kind of drift machine.
Created in collaboration with driftmeister Vaughn Gittin, Jr., this custom F-150 has been designed for "on- and off-road capabilities, as well as drifting and jumping." It's got a suspension with components from Kibbetech King and Air Lift Performance to give it 12 inches of travel and comes packed with 5 Recaro seats. Other details remain limited, but if the rendering above is anything to go by, it ought to be pretty awesome.
Alongside the Gittin truck, Ford will also be showcasing another F-150 designed together with freestyle motorcross rider Brian Deegan, packing the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine and a long list of enhancements. Between these two trucks, Ford hopes to extend its winning streak for the Hottest Truck award that it's taken four years running now. Feel free to read more in the press release below.

Major automakers post mixed US June sales figures

General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV posted declines in US new vehicle sales for June on Monday, while major Japanese automakers reported stronger figures. Once again, demand for pickup trucks and crossovers offset a decline in sedan sales. Automakers' shares rose as overall industry sales still came in above Wall Street expectations. The US auto industry is bracing for a downturn after hitting a record 17.55 million new vehicles sold in 2016. Analysts had predicted that overall, US vehicle sales would fall in June for the fourth consecutive month. As the market has shown signs of cooling, automakers have hiked discounts and loosened lending terms. Car shopping website Edmunds said on Monday the average length of a car loan reached an all-time high of 69.3 months in June. "It's financially risky, leaving borrowers exposed to being upside down on their vehicles for a large chunk of their loans," said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds' executive director of industry analysis. GM said its sales fell about 5 percent versus June 2016, but that the industry would see stronger sales in the second half of 2017 versus the first half. "Under the current economic conditions, we anticipate US retail vehicle sales will remain strong for the foreseeable future." GM shares were up 2.4 percent in morning trading, while Ford rose 3.3 percent and FCA shares jumped 6 percent. "US total sales are moderating due to an industry-wide pullback in daily rental sales, but key US economic fundamentals clearly remain positive," said GM chief economist Mustafa Mohatarem. "Under the current economic conditions, we anticipate US retail vehicle sales will remain strong for the foreseeable future." Ford said its sales for June were hit by lower fleet sales to rental agencies, businesses, and government entities, which fell 13.9 percent, while sales to consumers were flat. But it sold a record 406,464 SUVs in the first half of the year, with Explorer sales increasing 23 percent in June. And sales of the F-150 had their strongest June since 2001. On a media call, Ford executives said an initial read of automakers' sales figures indicated a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of around 17 million new vehicles for the month, which would be better than 16.6 million units analysts had predicted. FCA said June sales decreased 7 percent versus the same month a year earlier.