2006 Ford E350 Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Average transaction prices climb to a record $36,270 in January

The automotive sector made a hash of the numbers last month, a mess of pluses and minuses clogging the transaction-price charts according to Kelley Blue Book. The overall industry rose one percent, even though buyers bought fewer cars and light vehicles in January 2018 vs 2017 using the selling-day adjusted rate. Due to January transaction prices rising to $36,270, a record for January, the value of new vehicles sold climbed more than $1 billion compared to January 2017. KBB's transaction prices don't include customer incentives, which changes the complexion slightly; average incentive spending rose to just over ten percent. The average transaction price in December 2017 was $36,756, so January dropped a bit - nothing unexpected, with the month annually blamed for "January doldrums." More revealing is the fact that the average transaction price in January 2017 was $34,910. This year's plumped-up figure came courtesy of the continued shift to crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's read an automotive blog in the past 20 years. That category comprised nearly 70 percent of new vehicle sales for the month. Some manufacturers profited more than others, though. Fiat Chrysler managed 12.8 percent fewer sales in January compared year-on-year, but the company's vehicles sold for $1,300 more. The Ford brand suffered a 6.3-percent dip in sales, but brand transaction prices increased $2,000, while a Lincoln sold for $8,700 more on average. General Motors sold more cars and sold them for more money; overall GM transaction prices rose four percent, or $1,270, while a GMC traded hands for seven-percent more than in January 2017 and a Cadillac got $2,300 more on average. Of KBB's listed automakers, the Volkswagen Group got the most of out its customers, transaction prices rising at the German automaker by 5.6 percent to $42,243 in January 2018 compared to a year earlier. American Honda followed with a 4.3-percent increase to $28,991, GM in third at 4.1 percent to $40,313. Find your next car at Autoblog using our new and used car listings or the Car Finder tool. Broken out by segment, minivans rocked the table, transaction prices leaping by 7.9 percent to $35,380 compared to January a year earlier. Luxury cars boasted the next-highest rise, at 3.6 percent to $58,533.

US Ford Focus RS to be imported from Europe

Rumors about the forthcoming Ford Focus RS are flourishing into what sounds like a very impressive new hot hatch. The latest scuttlebutt gives the first indication about when we might see a few of these fast Focuses on roads here in the US.
Unnamed insiders reportedly confirmed to The Truth About Cars that Ford plans to launch the Focus RS in the US in 2016. However, getting one might not be so easy - the boosted powertrain means the car would likely need to be imported from Europe. That's likely going to keep the total number available in the US rather low. The sources estimate a price tag that's a bit more expensive than the top Focus ST3, which starts around $28,500, plus $825 destination.
It seems that a pretty potent package comes for all of that cash, though. The Focus RS reportedly uses a 2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder making between 325 and 350 horsepower, with a torque-vectoring all-wheel drive system to get that muscle to the road. The test mules also wear more aggressive front and rear fascias, dual exhaust tips, larger brakes and sticky tires. It sounds like a great formula on top of the already enjoyable Focus ST.

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.