1999 Ford E-150 Econoline Base Standard Cargo Van 2-door 5.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Winnebago re-introduces classic Brave RV [w/video]

Winnebago is saying 'Let's do the time warp again,' using its new Brave RV to do it – have a look at the first Winnebago RV from 1966 and you'll know exactly where this one comes from. The modern version of this swinging sixties motorhome is accurate from its size, either 26- or 27-foot version, to its trademark eyebrow above the front windshield. The foldaway bunk above the front seats that necessitated the eyebrow design has been updated, and is now a power bed that descends from the ceiling. It is among a set of standard features that also includes a 19-foot motorized awning, leveling jacks at all four corners, heated mirrors, LED ceiling lights, two available floorplans and detailing like a workstation for the front passenger, a sliding dash cluster and and a waterfall countertop in the kitchen with built-in extensions. The Brave sits on a Ford F53 chassis complete with its Triton V10 engine and five-speed automatic transmission. No word yet on any potential diesel alternatives. Naturally, that 1966 price of $4,000 will also come in for an update, but the company hasn't yet revealed it. The good folks from Winnebago will be happy to take you on a thorough personal tour of the Brave in the video below. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Winnebago via YouTubeTip: John Auto News Ford Truck Special and Limited Editions Videos motorhome recreational vehicles winnebago

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.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.