2002 Ford Sport Trac Explorer Pick Up 4x4 Awd Low Miles Clean Utility Suv Mint on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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 recalling 2015 Mustang for fuel line leak, 20K Transit Connects for plastic panel

Ford is recalling 738 examples of the 2015 2015 Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine – 712 in the US, 16 in Canada. A fuel pressure sensor might have been installed incorrectly on the affected cars, and that could result in a fuel leak. At the time of writing the company hasn't heard any reports of any incidents related to the issue, and parties with affected vehicles can take them to the dealer to have the fuel tube assembly replaced free of charge. The 2014 Transit Connect Cargo Van is also the subject of a safety recall, due to a possible problem with adhesive used on the exterior plastic panel on the sliding doors. There are 19,825 units covered by that recall, which dealers will also repair free of charge. You can find more information on both bulletins in the press releases below. Ford Issues Safety Recall for Certain 2015 Mustang Vehicles in North America for Fuel Pressure Sensor Issue Dec 4, 2014 | DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 730 2015 Ford Mustang vehicles in North America (actual 728) for a potential fuel line leak. A fuel pressure sensor, which is part of the fuel supply tube assembly, may have been installed incorrectly, potentially resulting in a pressurized fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire. Ford is not aware of any fires, accidents or injuries related to this condition. Affected vehicles include certain 2015 Ford Mustangs equipped with 2.3-liter engines built at Flat Rock Assembly Plant, Sept. 25, 2014 to Oct. 9, 2014. Ford is aware of 712 vehicles in the United States and federalized territories and 16 in Canada. These totals are as of Dec. 3, 2014. Dealers will replace the fuel supply tube assembly at no cost to the customer. *** Ford Issues Safety Recall for Certain 2014 Transit Connect Cargo Van Vehicles in North America for Issue with the Plastic Panel on the Sliding Doors Dec 4, 2014 | DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford is issuing a safety recall for approximately 20,000 2014 Transit Connect cargo van vehicles in North America (actual 19,825) for an issue with adhesion of an exterior plastic panel to the sliding doors. This issue may result in noise, a water leak, a loose panel, or separation of the plastic panel from the vehicle while driving, potentially increasing the risk of an accident or injury. Ford is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this condition.

2015 Ford Mustang fuel economy ratings leaked

Thinking about buying a new Mustang, but want to know what kind of fuel economy it'll get? Well we have our first indication as the pony-car enthusiasts over at Mustang6G.com have gotten a hold of the Monroney window stickers for a few of the new 2015 Mustang models.
Although the V8 model is not among them, we can now see how the EPA has rated those models with a half dozen pistons or less. The Mustang EcoBoost with the turbo four and a manual transmission has been rated at 22 miles per gallon in the city and 31 on the highway. The V6 manual gets 17 city and 28 highway, while the V6 automatic squeezes out a bit more in the city at 19 mpg but carries the same 28 highway rating.
By way of comparison, the latest Chevy Camaro with the V6 and a stick shift gets the same 17/28 EPA rating as a similarly equipped new 'Stang, and the V6 automatic Camaro gets 18/27 (slightly behind the Ford, but if you opt for the Camaro 2LS with its V6, automatic and 2.92 rear axle ratio, you'll be looking at 19 and 30).