2003 Ford Windstar on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford hurt by 2015 F-150 production restraints

The new 2015 Ford F-150 came out of the gate strong for January 2015 with all F-Series sales up 17 percent for the month. However, February tempered those gains a bit with the model line dipping 1.2 percent, and the Ford brand itself dropped 1.7 percent year-over-year. The fall is being blamed in part on tight supply of the latest pickup. A major factor holding back the 2015 F-150 is that they are only currently being made at the Dearborn Truck Plant. The Kansas City factory is still changing over, and full supply from them both is expected by the middle of the year. Ford also just announced plans to hire an extra 1,550 people to build the pickups, including 900 in Kansas City. However, the downtime in the assembly changeover has caused about 90,000 units in lost production since mid-2014, according to The Detroit Free Press. It's not all bad news for the pickup, though. The latest F-150 made up 21 percent of F-Series sales in February, according to The Detroit Free Press, up from 18 percent in the previous month, and they remained on dealer lots an average of 18 days. The lessened supply has also meant lower incentives. Mark LaNeve, Ford's US marketing boss, told the Free Press that average F-150 transaction prices were up $2,000 from last year. He also indicated that retail figures grew seven percent in February, while F-Series fleet numbers were down 18 percent. The constrained supply does come at an inopportune time for Ford, though. This year is expected to be huge for pickups. Also, lower gas prices appear to be pushing people towards SUVs and trucks recently. Related Video:

Ford worker files for UAW dues refund, stirs right-to-work debate

Let's start with some history: Ford's Dearborn truck plant, part of the company's massive River Rouge complex, was the center of a strike in 1941 that led to Ford signing the first "closed shop" agreement in the industry. The agreement obliged every worker at the plant to be a dues-paying member of the United Auto Workers. In December 2012, however, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation making Michigan a right-to-work state, which outlawed closed shops. The new law gave workers the right to opt out of union membership and stop paying dues even if they were still covered by union activities like collective bargaining. For employees at the Dearborn plant, the right-to-work clauses take effect at the end of their current contract in 2015.
As a tool-and-die maker at Ford's Dearborn plant for 16 years, Todd Lemire pays dues to the UAW - about two hours' salary per month. However, he's been unhappy with the UAW's support of the Democratic party, and not wanting to wait until next year to be out of the UAW entirely he invoked his Beck Rights, which state that a non-member of a union does not have to pay dues to support non-core activities, such as political spending. But Lemire wasn't happy that Ford still subtracted the total amount of dues, with the UAW reimbursing the difference, so he filed suit with the National Labor Relations Board, feeling that the workaround violates his rights.
Lemire's case is just a week old, so it could be a while before a resolution. Yet, as September 15, 2015 draws near and the right-to-work laws take full effect for Michigan workers - and others wonder whether it could help revitalize the state's manufacturing base - a case like this adds more fuel to the discussion.

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.