2011 Ford F-250 Lariat Crew Diesel 4x4 Nav Rear Cam 53k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford taps Canada-based Multimatic to build carbon fiber Ford GT

Ford has given Canadian firm Multimatic the nod to build the carbon fiber body on the new GT – The Blue Oval says it has worked with this company for 30 years. The global supplier provides parts and engineering to various automakers, and while based in Markham, Ontario it has 12 plants in Canada, the US, Mexico, England, and China. When announcing the decision at the Canadian International Auto Show, Ford says it chose them "because they have specialized equipment for carbon fiber production and expertise in carbon fiber assembly," and we've heard that the 600-horsepower coupe will be produced in a purpose-built facility at Ford's factory in Markham. Even better than that – for GT purposes and for possible hints at a Le Mans run – the Multimatic Motorsports division can be contracted for engineering and race team management. They currently produce the Boss 302R racecar in the Continental Tire SportsCar Challenge, worked on the FR500C, and their Multimatic Motorsports Lola B2K/40 won its class at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2000. The first models will roll off the line at the end of next year. Production numbers are rumored to be in the low hundreds, with a six-figure price tag around $200,000. They'll go into production in time for some sort of 50th anniversary celebration of the GT40 taking the the top three spots at Le Mans in 1966. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford GT: Chicago 2015 View 30 Photos News Source: CBCImage Credit: Live images copyright 2015 Drew Phillips / AOL Plants/Manufacturing Ford Coupe Luxury Performance Multimatic

Ford Fusion production scaled back just 3 months after it was accelerated

Three months after kicking off production of the Ford Fusion at its Flat Rock, MI factory, Ford Motor Company is taking steps to trim output in the face of heavily discounted competition from Toyota and a growing supply of vehicles.
The addition of Fusion production in Flat Rock - which also builds the Mustang - was meant to be what pushed the handsome mid-sizer past its arch-nemesis, the Toyota Camry. An extra facility building Fusions was also meant to curb the growing demand for Ford's highly profitable sedan.
But with word that Flat Rock would take "approximately" one extra week off for the holidays combined with an 88-day supply of Fusions - reportedly due in no small part to what Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas called "aggressive discounting of the Camry" - some analysts are now beginning to wonder if Ford may have overextended itself by adding a second Fusion facility to the mix.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.