2011 Ford Expedition, 4x4 , Salvage Rebuilt , 3rd Row, Warranty , No Reserve !! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Green Zone works magic with GPS to make your drive smarter, cleaner

For the most part, plug-in hybrids rely on the power stored in the battery until that charge is depleted. Unless the switch can be changed manually, it's only then that the cars fire up the internal combustion engine and begin using the fossil fuels on board. This is ideal, of course, when one's drive isn't long enough that the car needs to start sipping gasoline at all. On longer commutes, when it's certain that the route is longer than the car's all-electric range, this isn't necessarily the most efficient use of energy. Ford's Green Zone system is designed to save some of that juice for the parts of the drive that require slower speeds. Ford is working on a smart system, based on Nokia mapping technology, that uses GPS data to use both the electricity and conventional fuel more efficiently. Since battery power is less efficient at highway speeds, Ford's Green Zone system is designed to save some of that juice for the parts of the drive that require slower speeds, rather than just using up all the electrons right at the beginning of the drive. Using a website or the in-car navigation system, the driver can pinpoint the parts of the route, highlighted in green, where using battery power would be more effective, and set the car to automatically switch to electricity for those sections. Depending on the route, the car could automatically switch back and forth between the two power sources multiple times, particularly if the drive is a mix between city and highway driving. Of course, Green Zone will be go beyond that. The program is being developed to take traffic and road grade into account, details that allow the car to be make even smarter choices to improve efficiency. Ford even hopes to have Green Zone learn driver habits, and respond accordingly depending on who is driving the car. The system could control other features as well, such as anticipating corners and shifting the headlights to better illuminate the road ahead. Green Zone could also potentially use information from vehicle-to-vehicle networking to control functions in the car. The Green Zone system still has a few years before it will be ready to be put into production vehicles, but Ford is confident it will make its way onto the road eventually. As with other innovations that improve efficiency and make our vehicles smarter, we can expect to see similar technology from other manufacturers, until it becomes a regular part of driving in the future.

2018 Ford F-150 Powerstroke vs. 2018 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel: comparing the specs

Now that Ford has finally released specifications for its diesel Ford F-150, we can finally see how it stacks up against its sole competition, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Naturally, since we haven't driven the new diesel F-150, we can't tell you which is better on the road, but there are interesting things we can glean from the numbers. Compare these and other potential new vehicle purchases using our tool. For one thing, the two trucks are extremely similar from a powertrain perspective. Both trucks use a turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 diesel, with the Ford using a 10-speed automatic, and the Ram using an 8-speed automatic. The Powerstroke engine is built in the U.K. but specifically tuned by Ford for American pickup truck duty. It is also is related to the diesel V6 used by Jaguar and Land Rover. The Ram 1500's engine is made by VM Motori. Only 10 horsepower and 20 pound-feet of torque separate the two, with the Ford getting the slight advantage. The Ford also produces its horsepower and torque slightly sooner than the Ram. Peak power in the Ford comes at 3,250 rpm compared to 3,600 rpm in the Ram, and peak torque arrives at 1,750 rpm in the Ford, and 2,000 rpm in the Ram. View 9 Photos More significant differences become apparent in the payload and towing area, both of which put the Ford at an advantage. The F-150 Powerstroke can carry 2,020 pounds of cargo, or tow 11,400 pounds. The Ram EcoDiesel, depending on configuration, can carry 1,100 to 1,600 pounds of cargo, and tow between 7,560 and 9,210 pounds. Fuel economy might go to the Ford if it hits the company's target of 30 mpg highway. That would beat the Ram's 27 mpg highway. We don't know what Ford's target city mpg is, but the Ram manages 20 in town with two-wheel drive. Four-wheel drive drops the city rating to 19 mpg. View 6 Photos The biggest decider between the trucks might be cost. Ford is only offering its diesel engine on higher end trims, which means that the cheapest diesel F-150 starts at $46,315. That's for a two-wheel drive Lariat extended cab with a 6.5-foot bed. Ram on the other hand, offers the diesel in everything from its ultra-bare-bones Tradesman pickup, allowing for a base price of just $28,585, up to the fancy Laramie Longhorn and Limited trims. Ram's diesel is also available with all cab variants, while Ford's is only offered in extended- and double-cab body styles.

180,000 new vehicles are sitting, derailed by lack of transport trains

If you're planning on buying a new car in the next month or so, you might want to pick from what's on the lot, because there could be a long wait for new vehicles from the factory. Locomotives continue to be in short supply in North America, and that's causing major delays for automakers trying to move assembled cars.
According to The Detroit News, there are about 180,000 new vehicles waiting to be transported by rail in North America at the moment. In a normal year, it would be about 69,000. The complications have been industry-wide. Toyota, General Motors, Honda and Ford all reported experiencing some delays, and Chrysler recently had hundreds of minivans sitting on the Detroit waterfront waiting to be shipped out.
The problem is twofold for automakers. First, the fracking boom in the Bakken oil field in the Plains and Canada is monopolizing many locomotives. Second, the long, harsh winter is still causing major delays in freight train travel. The bad weather forced trains to slow down and carry less weight, which caused a backup of goods to transport. The auto companies resorted to moving some vehicles by truck, which was a less efficient but necessary option.