1957 Ford Thunderbird Base Convertible 2-door 5.1l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalls over 500,000 trucks and SUVs, including Explorer, F-150, and Lincoln Aviator

For the second time in a month, Ford is recalling the brand-new 2020 Explorer and 2020 Lincoln Aviator for minor safety issues. This recall, which also affects certain 2018-2020 Ford F-150s, 2019-2020 Ford F-Series Super Duty trucks, 2018-2019 Ford Explorers, and 2019-2020 Ford Expeditions, pertains to potentially faulty seat-back reclining mechanisms. In total, the recall touches 550,186 vehicles. A mechanical part meant for relaxation and comfort has the Ford Motor Company stressin'. Ford says potentially affected vehicles might be missing the "third pawl required for seat-back strength" in the reclining mechanisms on certain seats. Because of this, the seats might not properly keep a person in place during the event of a crash or otherwise.  In the F-150s, F-Series Super Duty trucks, 2018-2019 Explorers, and Expeditions, the recall affects vehicles with manual driver and/or front passenger seat-back recliners. On the 2020 Explorers and Lincoln Aviators, rear outboard seats with manual recliners are of concern. Of the more than 550,000 vehicles, 483,325 vehicles are in the United States, 58,712 are in Canada and 8,149 are in Mexico. Thus far, Ford is not aware of any injuries from the issues. Ford says it expects most vehicles will not need repair, but dealers will inspect the seat structures out of precaution. If fault is found, dealers will replace the seat structure altogether. For this recall, Ford's reference number is 19C07. Contact your dealer for more information. Featured Gallery 2020 Ford Explorer View 47 Photos Recalls Ford Lincoln Truck SUV

Mustang GT350 reveal coming Nov 17?

Ford looks to have something really big planned for the 2014 Los Angeles Auto Show. The Blue Oval has released the first of five teaser videos on the brand's performance heritage, and aside from some great images of racers over the years, the video includes a series of teaser images, the last of which points to November 17, 2014.
That's the day before press days open in LA, and considering the propensity of global automakers to plan lavish debuts the night before a major international auto show, it's a virtual certainty that Ford will be showing off some sort of special vehicle.
That'd be news in and of itself, but based on the images shown in Ford's teaser video - which include an Alcantara steering wheel, a "Powered by Ford" valve cover, aluminum pedals, sticky tires, a big, round exhaust tip, a honeycomb grille and a serious set of wheels - it seems very likely that Ford will be showing something performance oriented.

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.