1962 Ford Galaxie 500 Base 5.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost to hit 45 mpg for $16,445*

When Ford first announced its plan to put the 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder engine under the hood of the 2014 Fiesta, it promised hybrid-like fuel economy without a hybrid-like premium. We're still waiting for official specs on this engine, but thanks to the EPA's fueleconomy.gov website and Ford's retail site, we now know what customers can expect in terms of both fuel economy and price.
All along, Ford has said that it expects the 1.0-liter EcoBoost to get more than 40 miles per gallon on the highway, and now the EPA backs this up with official ratings of 32 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. These numbers are an increase of two mpg city and four mpg hwy compared to the current fuel-sipping Fiesta (the 1.6 SFE), and it also beats other three-cylinder cars for highway mileage like the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage (44 mpg highway) and 2014 Smart Fortwo (38 mpg highway); the Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost is lower than both three-pot rivals, though, in city fuel economy with the Mitsubishi getting 37 mpg city and the Smart rated at 34 mpg city. This model handily beats high-volume small cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Chevy Spark in both city and highway numbers.
As for pricing, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is offered on both the sedan and hatchback as a $995 option called the SE Manual EcoBoost package, which is aptly named since it's only offered on SE trim-level Fiestas equipped with a manual transmission. Along with the engine, the package also comes with 15-inch steel wheels, regenerative brakes and a decklid spoiler on the sedan. This means the four-door Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost will start at $16,445*, or $17,045* for the hatchback (*not including $795 for destination).

Lincoln 'not true luxury' yet, says Ford design chief

Lincoln is "not true luxury," according to Ford's design boss, J Mays. His statements come from a story in The Detroit News that saw candid language on the issues facing Ford's troubled premium brand. Notably, there's a need for a strong character, with Mays saying, "Every brand needs to have a DNA and a unique selling point and things in the vehicle that make you think, 'That's that particular brand.'"
With a range of rebadged Fords, it's not hard to see why that DNA is missing. Mays hinted that a full recovery for Lincoln will be a ten-year process, that's been kicked off with the MKZ sedan. While that car is still largely a Ford Fusion under its extremely pretty wrapper, it's the first Lincoln in some time to inject its own unique take both through the exterior styling and through interior features, such as the vertical, pushbutton gear selection.
Some analysts weren't so certain about Mays' 10-year estimate. Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics thinks it'll be more like 30 years before Lincoln can show a true return to form. The issue, as Hall explains it, is that, "luxury has a degree of exclusivity," that Lincoln just doesn't have. Michelle Krebs from Edmunds adds, "it's definitely a wanna-be luxury brand," comparing the troubled American brand with Infiniti and Acura, two other brands that have struggled to find their place in the luxury market.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.