V6 3.0 Suv Cd 4x4 Xls 2" Hitch Receiver Spacious Family Hauler Outdoors Camping on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'84 MotorWeek Cherokee, Bronco and Blazer comparison indulges your SUV nostalgia

These days, truck-based, full-frame SUVs are somewhat of a rarity on the auto landscape due to the rapid rise in popularity of easier-driving, car-based crossovers. Although, without the gradually building popularity of these chunky, high-riding vehicles decades ago, it's unlikely that America's roads would be filled with so many CUVs today. In its latest dig into the archives, MotorWeek has found a 1984 comparison test of a trio of these early Sport Utility Wagons, as long-time host John Davis called them, that helped get acceptance of this segment going. This is a red, white and blue test of the SUVs from American automakers at the time and pits the Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Bronco and Jeep Cherokee (specifically in Wagoneer guise) against each other. Driving manners and interior usability are considered in the evaluation, but Motorweek actually takes these vehicles off road, too. Among the bigger revelations is the improvement in on-road ability in the past 30 years. While specific 0-60 times aren't given, all three models take around 10 seconds just to get to around 50 miles per hour in the 500-feet on-ramp acceleration test. Check out this clip to see just how far this segment has progressed in the past three decades or just get a blast of nostalgia from these now vintage models. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Jeep SUV Off-Road Vehicles Classics Videos Ford Bronco chevy blazer

Lincoln dealers to build standalone dealerships separate from Ford

Way back in 2011, Ford Motor Credit Co. established Lincoln Automotive Financial Services as part of what Automotive News called "a campaign to set the Lincoln brand apart." Lincoln's been on a wild, public ride in the seven years since, which included a near-death experience in 2013 under former Ford CEO Alan Mulally. But Ford's luxury brand has rebounded and is ready to take another shot at setting itself apart. Automaker execs have asked dealers with twinned Ford- Lincoln dealerships in 30 major U.S. markets to build standalone stores. According to company data, the move isn't a gamble — dealers with standalone showrooms sell more vehicles. Lincoln's standalone dealerships in the 30 major U.S. markets that account for 70 percent of luxury segment sales increased 48 percent from 2014 to 2017, compared to an overall Lincoln brand sales increase of 18 percent. After a former Ford-Lincoln dealer in Minneapolis opened a devoted Lincoln store this January, sales have climbed 60 percent so far this year. Dealers in Orange County, California, and Atlanta, Georgia have seen sales double since opening exclusive Lincoln storefronts. The sales manager at the Atlanta dealer said, "Customers have pulled up and said, 'This is how it should be.'" Robert Parker, Lincoln's head of marketing, said, "Customers expect the environment to be equal to the product. They want to buy a luxury product in a luxury environment." That issue repeatedly comes up when a mass-market brand launches a luxury product; observers have lately wondered how much the issue affects sales of Hyundai's Genesis brand. Out of 845 Lincoln showrooms nationwide, there are 150 Lincoln dealers in those 30 major U.S. markets. So far, 72 dealers have made or are working to make the standalone switch on their own. Lincoln is asking the remaining 78 shops to follow suit, to agree to a new facility by July 2019 and to have the store finished by July 2021. Only the showrooms would need to be exclusive, service and other back-end departments can remain in Ford-branded complexes. Wielding the carrot, Lincoln will help dealers with relocating, and pay more for every car sold. Wielding the stick, Lincoln said that come Q2 2019, it won't let twinned dealers sell Black Label trims if they don't already. Over the next couple of years, Lincoln will complete the revamp of its lineup. Said marketing honco Parker, "The next phase of the transformation is critical.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.