Ambulance Type 3: 2006 Ford E-450, Diesel, Wheeled Coach on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Revisiting the 2008-09 auto bailout that saved GM and Chrysler

The Federal Reserve stayed open late on December 31, 2008. There's almost no way you could remember that because barely anyone knew at the time. But General Motors had to pay its bills, and the Fed wired money so GM could still buy things in January. Without those funds, the nation's largest automaker wouldn't have seen much of 2009. It's one of many heart-stopping moments that illustrate just how close Detroit's Big Three came to extinction nearly a decade ago. They're chronicled in a new movie, Live Another Day, premiering in theaters September 16. Filmmakers Bill Burke and Didier Pietri interviewed nearly all of the key executives, federal officials, and union chiefs to recreate the auto industry's most perilous period. The movie begins in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' demise amid the global financial meltdown. Things looked bleak for American carmakers, and their CEOs were laughed off Capitol Hill when they sought a Wall Street-style bailout. "It was a feeling that it was the end of the world," Pietri told Autoblog in an interview where he and Burke previewed the film. Saved by last-minute loans authorized by the Bush Administration after Congress refused to act, Detroit staggered into 2009 with a faint pulse. Live Another Day illustrates the downward spiral that played out that winter as President Obama and his task force – with little prior knowledge of the auto industry – wrestled over the fate of hundreds of thousands of jobs. GM's longtime CEO Rick Wagoner was fired in March. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne suddenly appeared as a savior for Chrysler, with his own motives. Obama rejected restructuring plans from the automakers. Chrysler declared bankruptcy on April 30. GM followed June 1. The sequence was very public, but Pietri and Burke showcase lesser-known events that shaped the outcome. They also seek to dispel the notion that the government rescued GM and Chrysler from incompetent leaders. "We never subscribed to the theories that the management structures of the companies were a bunch of idiots who didn't know what is going on," Pietri said. At one point, Chrysler executives were negotiating with Marchionne and Fiat. Unbeknownst to them, the government was having its own talks with the Italian automaker. The filmmakers also cast light on the bankruptcy process, which was shredded to shepherd two of America's industrial icons through reorganizations.

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.

Defying Trump, major automakers finalize California emissions deal

WASHINGTON — The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and major automakers on Monday confirmed they had finalized binding agreements to cut vehicle emissions in the state, defying the Trump administration's push for weaker curbs on tailpipe pollution. The agreements with carmakers Ford Motor Co, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Co and BMW AG were first announced in July 2019 as voluntary measures prompting anger from U.S. President Donald Trump. A month later, the Justice Department opened an antitrust probe into the agreements. The government ended the investigation without action. The Trump administration in March finalized a rollback of U.S. vehicle emissions standards to require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026. That is far weaker than the 5% annual increases in the discarded rules adopted under President Barack Obama. The 50-page California agreements, which extend through 2026, are less onerous than the standards finalized by the Obama administration but tougher than the Trump administration standards. The automakers have also agreed to electric vehicle commitments. Volvo Cars, owned by China's Geely Holdings, said in March it planned to join the automakers agreeing to the California requirements. It has also finalized its agreement. The settlement agreements say California and automakers agreed to resolve "potential legal disputes concerning the authority of CARB" and other states that have adopted California's standards. In May, a group of 23 U.S. states led by California and some major cities, challenged the Trump vehicle emissions rule. Other major automakers like General Motors Co, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Toyota Motor Corp did not join the California agreement. Those companies also sided with the Trump administration in a separate lawsuit over whether the federal government can strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements. Ford said the "final agreement will reduce emissions in our vehicles at a more stringent rate, support and incentivize the production of electrified products, and create regulatory certainty." BMW said "by setting these long-term, predictable, and achievable standards, we have the regulatory certainty that is necessary for long-term planning that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but ultimately benefit consumers as well."