1969 Ford F100 Shortbox Step Side 1/2 Ton Pick Up! With Video!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford shutters Genk assembly plant in Belgium

Ford has become the latest automaker to close one of its European assembly plants. The facility in question is located in the Belgian city of Genk and has been in operation since the early '60s when it started building the Taunus, Ford's first mass-produced, front-drive model. As part of the plan first announced over two years ago, the Genk Body & Assembly Plant is now closing its doors after half a century in the business and over fourteen million vehicles built. Although the plant itself employed some 5,000 workers, once you take into account the suppliers built up around the plant, the overall impact on employment in the area edges closer to 12,000. Genk Body & Assembly had until recently been tasked with producing the Mondeo sedan (which in its current iteration we know as the Fusion) as well as the S-Max and Galaxy minivans. Production of the Mondeo shifted in 2013 to the company's plant in Valencia, Spain, which also handles the Kuga crossover and Transit Connect cargo van, and will soon take over the minivans from Genk as well. The move follows a similar decision undertaken by General Motors to close the Opelwerk plant in Bochum, Germany. It also reflects a scaling down of automobile production in Belgium specifically: although Audi still manufacturers in Brussels and and Volvo in Ghent, Opel closed its plant in Antwerp in 2000 and Renault ceased production in Vilvoorde back in '97. However Ford still maintains its famous proving ground half an hour to the north in Lommel, Belgium. News Source: AutovisieImage Credit: Kristof Van Accom / AFP / Getty Plants/Manufacturing Ford plant ford s-max ford galaxy

2015 Ford Mustang gets pricing, configurator and less weight than expected

It's here; it's finally here. No more speculating or looking at dealer order guides, the configurator for the 2015 Ford Mustang is finally online. That means you should put down whatever you're doing and build your new 'Stang. Weight data for the new model has also leaked out, and while there is an increase, it's less than previously rumored.
The basic V6 coupe carries a base price of $23,600, plus an additional $825 destination charge for all models. Upgrading to the 2.3-liter Ecoboost costs $25,170, and the Ecoboost Premium is $29,170. If you need a V8 in your life, the Mustang GT is $32,100 or $36,100 with the Premium package. That puts the starting price up about $1,000 over the previous generation for the V6, but the turbocharged four-cylinder starts about $1,400 less than the V6 Premium, which is no longer available. Prices for both V8 models jumped about $1,000, as well.
If you need the convertible Mustang, the V6 starts at $29,100, excluding destination, $1,590 more than last year. The Ecoboost Premium 'vert is $34,670, and the GT droptop is $41,600.

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.