12 Sho Awd Navigation Performance Pkg Remote Start 20s 3.16 Axle Blind Spot Eco on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford cuts production at 5 plants, has big backload of cars including Mustang

DETROIT — Ford said on Tuesday it plans to idle five North American vehicle assembly plants for a total of 10 weeks to reduce inventories of slow-selling models. The plants affected include three assembly plants in the United States and two in Mexico, the company said in a statement. The vehicle models include the Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ midsize sedans, the Ford Focus compact car, the Lincoln Continental and Ford Mustang, Ford Fiesta and the Ford Transit van. Ford said the Cuautitlan assembly plant that builds the Fiesta would be idled for three weeks. The Hermosillo, Mexico plant that builds the Fusion and MKZ and the Flat Rock, Michigan, factory that assembles Continentals and Mustangs will be idled for two weeks each. The Michigan Assembly plant that builds the Focus will be idled for one week, and the Kansas City assembly line that builds Transit vans will be down for two weeks. Ford did not give dates for the temporary shutdowns. The factories involved employ more than 15,000 people, according to Ford's website. The company did not say how many of those workers would face temporary layoffs. As of Sept. 1, Ford had 111 days' worth of unsold Mustangs, 87 days' supply of Fusions, and a 103 days' supply of Transit vans, according to Automotive News. Dealers had enough unsold Lincoln Continentals to last 162 days. Automakers aim for 65 to 70 days of inventory of most models. Ford and rival General Motors have wrestled most of this year to rein in high inventories of passenger cars as consumers have shifted to buying pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. Production cuts slice into revenue, but also could help the automakers avoid deeper price cuts on vehicles they can sell. Reporting by Joe WhiteRelated Video: Image Credit: Reuters Plants/Manufacturing Ford Lincoln Convertible Coupe Minivan/Van Sedan ford transit inventory flat rock kansas city assembly plant hermosillo

Chrysler called out over lackluster Ram Runner by racer who helped develop it

Fans of off-roading and desert blasting might recall that Chrysler offers an aftermarket conversion that can turn a Ram 1500 into a road-legal desert racer, called the Ram Runner. The kit, sold through Mopar, includes some significant suspension upgrades, body tweaks and a brawnier cat-back exhaust for the truck's 5.7-liter V8.
Considering all of this, comparisons with the almighty Ford F-150 SVT Raptor are common. Among the off-road community, that makes these two a sort of Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang for people that prefer driving on dirt. In the Race-Dezert forum, the discussion as to which truck was better was proceeding as normal - Ram fans said their piece and Ford fans said theirs. Then, a man named Kent Kroeker offered up his two cents.
See, Kroeker is a Baja racer, and the man that helped develop the Ram Runner. Despite his association with the truck, though, he had some less than kind words for Chrysler and the Ram Runner.

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.