05 Excursion Eddie Bauer 4x4 Lift Diesel Tv Dvd Captain Chairs We Finance Texas on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford tumbles to second worst in Consumer Reports reliability survey, list dominated by Japanese [w/video]

It's no secret that MyFord Touch has had its share of problems since being introduced, but the most recent reliability survey from Consumer Reports shows just how much this infotainment system has affected Ford. Just two years ago, the automaker was in the top 10 for the institute's reliability rankings, but since then, it has tumbled to the second-lowest rung just above dead-last Jaguar. In addition to MyFord Touch, CR also attributes a handful of new products that have had issues right out of the gate.
Compiled from 1.2 million subscriber surveys, this year's auto reliability survey heavily favors Japanese automakers, with eight of the 10 spots hailing from Japan. Toyota brands grabbed the top three spots (Scion, Toyota and Lexus - in that order) with Mazda, Subaru, Honda and Acura filling the next four spots. The only non-Asian automaker cracking the top 10 was Audi at number eight.
Audi climbed a total of 18 spots from last year, and Cadillac and GMC round out this year's top gainers breaking into the top 15. Helping Cadillac's upward movement, the CTS Coupe was named the most reliable domestic car. Lincoln, Volvo and Chrysler join Ford on this year's biggest loser list.

Your official Ford Transit specs are here, $29,565* to start

Ford has released the full list of pricing and specs on its new Transit, the replacement for the long-lived E-Series cargo van. Prices are set to start at $29,565 and can increase rapidly from there, depending on length, engine and wheelbase, among other options.
Let's talk first about those new engines. The base is the familiar 3.7-liter, naturally aspirated V6. It boasts 275 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque and can return up to 14 miles per gallon in the city and 19 mpg on the highway. This engine can also be adapted to run on LPG or compressed natural gas. Of course, there are better alternatives, for a price, the first of which is Ford's well-received, 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6. It packs 310 hp and a best-in-class 400 lb-ft of torque (available at just 2,500 rpm) while matching the naturally aspirated engine in both city and highway fuel economy.
Then, there's the diesel. With a 3.2-liter, five-cylinder diesel mill at its disposal, the Transit generates 350 lb-ft between 1,500 and 2,500 rpm, along with 185 hp. This engine hasn't been rated by the EPA, although we'd be really, really surprised if it didn't handily best either of the gas-powered engines in fuel efficiency. A six-speed automatic is standard, regardless of engine.

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.