2000 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer Sport Utility 4-door 5.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hear the 2015 Mustang GT V8 roar for the first time

Our combined knowledge of the 2015 Ford Mustang continues to deepen, as spy shooters have begun to compile video and audio of the upcoming sixth-generation car.
Case in point is this latest series of video clips, which not only gives us a great vantage point of the Mustang in motion, but also allows us to hear the Ford V8 engine and exhaust. After perusing the aural delights of this short video, which, admittedly, doesn't catch the Mustang GT at full song, we can at least say that the throaty exhaust isn't disappointing.
Chances are good that the 2015 Mustang GT will debut with some version of the current (and excellent) Coyote 5.0-liter V8 engine, though we're unclear as to whether or not the motor has been massaged for its next-gen debut, or what may have been done to exhaust plumbing. At this point, we're just happy to hear the pony run. Scroll below to hear for yourself.

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.

Ford dinged by OSHA for asbestos at Buffalo plant

Ford has come under fire from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for violations regarding asbestos exposure in a company metal stamping plant in Buffalo, NY. OSHA has cited Ford for eight violations in total, according to an Automotive News report, and faces fines of up to $41,800. 537 workers are employed at the stamping facility.
The violations include a pipefitter at the facility being exposed to asbestos-containing material while working on a steam line, other workers exposed to the material without respiratory protection and work areas that were not designed to limited the number of workers in contact with asbestos. Further, areas in which asbestos was present were not properly restricted, and levels of asbestos in the air were not monitored.
According to an unnamed Ford spokesperson in the AN report, the company feels that the OSHA citation is erroneous saying, "We have fully cooperated with the local OSHA officials and we don't believe the citations are warranted." Ford also maintains that it will work with the authorities to resolve the issue.