Clean on 2040-cars
las vegas, Nevada, United States
Ford E-Series Van for Sale
- 2015 ford e-series van explorer limited x-se(US $17,100.00)
- 2013 ford e-series van xlt(US $16,600.00)
- 2012 ford e-series van xlt extended passenger van 3-door(US $13,200.00)
- Clean california title(US $2,000.00)
- 2005 ford e150 conversion van(US $13,995.00)
- 1997 ford e-series van 15 passenger(US $15,400.00)
Auto Services in Nevada
Yagers Garage ★★★★★
VIP Collision ★★★★★
Smog Xpress ★★★★★
Sin City Wheels & Tires ★★★★★
Sierra Window Tinting ★★★★★
Ryder Road Ready Used Vehicles ★★★★★
Auto blog
Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]
Tue, 05 Feb 2013Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.
Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid
Tue, Jun 17 2014It'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 Fusion and Fusion Hybrid nab five-star ratings from NHTSA
Thu, 24 Jan 2013Ford's Fusion and Fusion Hybrid have both received the highest five-star overall safety rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The rating is a big upgrade for the Fusion, which was completely redesigned for 2013. The previous model fell one star short of the top rating, after scoring only three stars in the frontal crash test and four stars in the side crash test and rollover evaluations. The 2013 Fusion received four stars in side crash and rollover testing and a full five stars in the front crash test.
Test results for the 2013 Fusion and Fusion Hybrid were greatly improved at least in part due to Ford's Personal Safety System. The system utilizes smarter sensors to gather crash data and tailor the car's restraint systems to the occupants. Seatbelt usage and seat position are taken into account to ensure airbags deploy with less pressure for smaller drivers, more for larger drivers.
The 2013 Fusion twins also received the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick+ designation. Read the official press release below.