2005 Ford Ranger Xl Standard Cab 3.0l With Diamond Service Body on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Lower gas prices mean there are excellent deals on green cars right now

The phenomenon was big enough to make news in 2006, then in 2008, in 2011, in 2012, in 2013, and again last year: a big move in gas prices means a big move in alternative-fuel-vehicle sales. True Car's TrueSavings report, which averages transaction prices across the country to figure out what people are paying compared to MSRP, shows that electric cars and hybrids are ripe for excellent savings right now. The Ford Focus Electric presents the greatest disparity, with the average transaction price of $25,168 representing a 16.1-percent saving off its $29,995 MSRP. The Kia Optima Hybrid and Toyota Prius also snagged spots in the top five, with the Kia offering a 10.7-percent discount and the Toyota a 10.1-percent discount. One hybrid managed to show up among the top five lease offers, too: the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid is just $315 a month for 36 months after $3,875 down in some markets. Alt-energy vehicles got bumped out of the top five finance deals, however. That was dominated by light trucks and, oddly, two subcompacts. The press release below has more details. TrueCar finds hybrids, EVs top list of best savings in January Gasoline price plunge = savings for consumers on alternative fuel vehicles SANTA MONICA, Calif., Jan. 15, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Ford's Focus Electric hatchback, which sells at an average of 16 percent off MSRP, tops January's list of best savings on new vehicles, according to TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRUE), the negotiation-free car buying and selling platform. The "TrueSavings" monthly report analyzes current transaction prices and identifies opportunities for consumer savings. "Fuel savings are not top of mind to many consumers right now, and that makes this a great time to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle," said John Krafcik, president of TrueCar. "With gasoline prices now averaging just $2.10 per gallon, and vehicle preferences tied so closely to short-term gasoline prices, automakers are heavily discounting their most fuel-efficient cars to clear inventories." Toyota's Prius, the world's best-selling alternative fuel vehicle for more than a decade, also makes January's list of best savings. Customers who purchase a Prius Two model this month can save 10 percent off the hybrid car's $25,025 MSRP. "Gasoline prices and vehicle type preferences are strongly related, and this relationship is cyclical in nature," said Krafcik.

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.