1928 Ford Model A Pickup, 1969 Built Hot Rod, Untouched Since 75. 302, C-4, 8in. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford finds flex-fuel engine design plays big role in emissions output

How bad is ethanol for your engine? There's been a lot of debate on this issue as the US considers upping the biofuel content in the national gasoline supply from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15). The ethanol industry and some scientists say higher ethanol blends show no "meaningful differences" in new engines while the oil industry says ethanol creates health risks. Researchers working at the Ford Research and Innovation Center decided to take a closer look at how a wide range of gas-ethanol blends - E0, E10, E20, E30, E40, E55 and E80 - affected the emissions coming out of a flex-fuel 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis. To see the full report, printed in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, requires payment, but there is an abstract and Green Car Congress has some more details. The gist is that, "with increasing ethanol content in the fuel, the tailpipe emissions of ethanol, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, methane, and ammonia increased." At least NOx and NMHC emissions decreased. The researchers say that the effects are due to the fuel and "are expected for all FFVs," but that the way that a manufacturer calibrates the engine will affect NOx, THC, and NMOG emissions. It's this last bit that's important, since the researchers found, "Higher ethanol content in gasoline affects several fundamental fuel properties that can impact emissions. ... These changes can have positive or negative effects that can depend on engine design, hardware, and control strategy. In addition to direct emissions impacts, higher ethanol content fuel can also provide more efficient combustion and overall engine operation under part-load conditions and under knock-limited higher-load conditions." So, as we head towards more ethanol in our fuel supply (maybe), manufacturers are going to need to learn how to burn it most efficiently.

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.

Ford profits soar as problems mount

Ford is doing well. It can't make enough examples of its new Fusion, it can barely make enough of the aging F-150, it's getting good brand rankings, people like its turnaround story, it's selling oodles of product and its quarterly profit numbers end in the word "billion." As other high-flying examples have demonstrated over the past few years, though, big numbers can come with problems that aren't exactly small.
Automotive News has published a good "nutshell" report of Ford's progress and problems. The Dearborn automaker's optimistic "general label rule" determination of gas mileage for the C-Max Hybrid has led to lawsuits, hybrid software updates, a downward revision of C-Max fuel economy and millions in rebates. AN notes the C-Max was the "worst-scoring model in this year's J.D. Power Initial Quality Study," but Ford will probably be happy that it managed not to be mentioned further in the study's results after last year's mediocre showing. Its MyTouch and SYNC systems, the bugbears sabotaging Ford's J.D. Power results, have also led to lawsuits, software updates, more software updates and a center console rethink. On top of that, the 1.6-liter EcoBoost in the 2013 Ford Escape that Ford called a "hero" was soon catching fire for three different reasons. And let's not even get into the troubled launch of the Lincoln MKZ.
The Automotive News piece notes that industry observers have been surprised at Ford's stumbles because everything has been looking so good. Nevertheless, there is still the issue of those billions in profits - the company is doing plenty of things, plural, right. Ford says it is tackling its problems, hiring engineers and instituting new quality control processes as part of its effort to find solutions. The test will be to see if in a year from now we begin the discussion of these issues with "Remember when Ford...", or "Problems continue at The Blue Oval."