Clean Nevada on 2040-cars

Auto blog

From Expedition to Navigator: our predictions for Lincoln's SUV

In the midst of all the buzz surrounding the new aluminum Ford Expedition and Expedition Max, we remembered the other large SUV the Ford Motor Company showed last year, the Lincoln Navigator concept. And since the Navigator has historically been built on the Expedition platform, we figured there's no better time to focus some of our predictions for the big Lincoln. First off, let's take a look at design. Having seen the new Expedition, we're fairly confident that the Navigator will look almost exactly like its concept. The strong similarities between two mean the Expedition serves as a preview of what a production Navigator will look like. For example, both vehicles' greenhouses we can see that the shape of the C-pillars are nearly identical. The only difference is that the Expedition's are painted body color, while the Navigator's are painted black. Additionally, the character line running along the top of the doors on both vehicles is roughly the same height. The same goes for the more subtle crease near the bottom of the doors. We also see no reason why Lincoln wouldn't use the full width taillights, fender vent, and grille treatment it used on the concept. Those are all easy design changes to create differentiation, and they're all right inline with the cues set by the Continental. View 15 Photos For powertrain, we're pretty certain the 400-horsepower 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 previewed on the concept is a certainty now. The Expedition and Expedition Max will be offered with a 3.5-liter EcoBoost as well, so we know it will fit. We expect the Expedition's engine will produce 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque as it does in the F-150. That's less power than the Navigator concept, but it would be reasonable to make the production Navigator a bit more powerful than its lowly Ford brethren to help justify the increased price tag. Towing capacity will probably be about the same between the Ford and Lincoln, which should be something over 9,000 pounds. The Navigator will probably use the same two-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive drivetrains, too. Inside is where the Expedition and Navigator will likely differ the most, particularly in seating. The Expedition offers seating for up to eight with an available second-row bench seat, and the Navigator concept had captain's chairs for every row. We're expecting the Navigator will only offer second-row captain's chairs since the cramped third row would be a waste of nice buckets.

NHTSA investigating Ford's solution to May 2014 power steering recall

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating a complaint that Ford's response to a May 2014 recall of the 2008 to 2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner doesn't quite go far enough to solve a troubling power-steering problem. Roughly a year ago, Ford recalled nearly a million vehicles after it was found that a problem with the torque sensor's communication with the power steering control module could cut steering assistance for drivers. While manual steering would still be available, the problem was enough to ask drivers to report in to have the PSCM inspected, and if necessary, replaced (along with the torque sensor, or in dramatic cases, the entire steering column). That would only happen, though, if trouble codes were being thrown. If there weren't any problems, dealers were told to simply update the PSCM's software so that any issues between it and the torque sensor would simply throw a visual and audio warning – power steering would still be maintained. The petitioner claimed that following the recall work, he still experienced a problem with the torque sensor. According to NHTSA, a claim was made that Ford didn't go far enough in its solution to the problem, and that "the software update itself may in fact cause further issues with the affected vehicle's power steering, causing it to fail, and ultimately requiring replacement of the torque sensor or entire steering column." The petition was filed in early February and is now officially being looked into by NHTSA.

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.