2018 Ford Expedition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lincoln trumpets $129M investment, 300 new jobs in Louisville for MKC

Remember when we used to talk about how close Lincoln was to being axed and how it seemed any day now the Grim Reaper would use it as a car service back to the grave? Last time we did it was, oh, not even a month ago. What a difference 27 days makes: Ford and Lincoln are trumpeting a $129M investment in the Louisville Assembly Plant that builds the MKC.
In July the MKC was the third-best-selling Lincoln of the brand's six offerings, beat by the MKZ and - by a much smaller margin - the MKX. It has sold 2,895 units in the two months it's been on sale, which is more than half the year-to-date sales of the MKS, MKT and Navigator. It's already important, is what we're trying to say, and this is before the Chinese market gets a crack at it later this year.
The money headed to Kentucky will be joined by 300 new workers, another marker in Ford's march to create 12,000 hourly jobs in the US by next year. You can read more about it in the press release below.

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.

Who would win in a race if the Super Bowl teams were cars?

Until the last down is played this Sunday, we will have the annoyance pleasure of listening to analysts bicker between who will win the Super Bowl, not unlike automotive analysts who do the same thing with cars. If I had a dollar for every conversation about what car would win against another on a specific track, I wouldn't be buying the raw avocados this year for my guacamole. Instead I would be purchasing organic avocados and have the guacamole served in a Ferrari-themed bowl. Yes, those exist. Even so, we still watch year after year knowing full well that the pre-game analysis typically adds up to less than what is left over in the chip bowl after the last guest leaves. Let's take a different approach to analysis this year, let's compare these teams to their vehicle equivalent to decide who would win in a fair race. How do you determine a fair race? When I think of a fair race I think of the Nurburgring. A track that is 12.9 miles, has 1,000 feet of elevation change, and is famously nicknamed The Green Hell by famed driver Jackie Stewart. Although your Supra may beat The Flash himself in a straight line, chances are once you push it to the limits on a 12.9-mile track your brakes will smell like a bonfire and your suspension will have gone into cardiac arrest twice. So if we're racing The 'Ring, what are we driving? To best answer that question we must determine what characteristics define these teams. Not being someone who knows more about my fantasy league than my significant other, I can only go off what I have heard from "experts." The Panthers are honestly known for Cam Newton. Cam is a versatile, fast, brash, and fairly young quarterback. He apologizes for nothing and has Ali-like confidence that shows in his choice of Liberace-type attire. Although he looks to be the favorite, he hasn't yet won a Super Bowl and the team's second-half performances are less than climatic. In racing terms, he has won a lot but no one has seen him race in the dark at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The Panthers have a ton of acceleration, a brand new chassis, and a driver who is hungry for that first big win. On the other side of the track are the Broncos. It seems as though the Broncos are known for two things, a nostalgic quarterback and a defense that could strike fear into a Honey Badger. If the Broncos were just one component of a vehicle they would be the brakes, and these brakes are outfitted for a locomotive.