12 Lariat! Super Crew! Crew Cab! Navigation! Sunroof! Leather! Sync Msrp $48,830 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Ford Focus RS leaked ahead of official debut

We won't officially see the new Ford Focus RS until the Blue Oval shows it to the world at an event on Tuesday, but here it is ahead of time, courtesy of the folks at Evo. As you can see, this is one hot little hatch, and if Evo's story is to be believed, those aggressive looks will be backed up with some pretty serious performance. Power is said to come from Ford's 2.3-liter EcoBoost inline four-cylinder engine, though the magazine's estimate of 250 horsepower seems awfully conservative to us (considering that's less than the current Focus ST). If earlier reports are to be believed, we think the RS will come packing more like 300 hp, if not more. For the first time, the Focus RS will use all-wheel drive with brake-operated torque-vectoring, and Evo says that up to 70 percent of the engine's power can be sent to the rear wheels. Hitting 60 miles per hour will reportedly take less than five seconds. Otherwise, it's business as usual, with a mean-looking exterior complete with the necessary aero bits (notice that wing!), and inside, we can see a beefy set of Recaro chairs. That's really all we know for now, but stay tuned for more when the Focus RS makes its official debut in the not-too-distant future. Related Video:

Ford F-150 SVT Raptor sales jumping to new heights

Ford can't seem to build F-150 SVT Raptors fast enough. The off-road-ready trucks have been one of the Blue Oval's most reliable sellers, with record sales in eight of the last 10 months and a 14-percent jump in 2013. That's impressive enough, considering that the least expensive Raptor starts at $44,000. Factor in the modded F-150's fuel economy (it's rated at 11 miles per gallon in the city and 16 on the highway) and a national average gas price, as of this writing, of $3.55 per gallon, and its success is as unlikely as Ford's home team, the Detroit Lions, winning the Super Bowl this year (sorry, Lions fans, we're just quoting the experts in Vegas...).
Yet for some reason, Raptors spend an average of just 15 days on dealer lots before being snapped up, which is a quarter of the 60-day industry average. According to Ford's truck group marketing manager, Doug Scott, it's capability that keeps the Raptor selling strong. "What's helping drive Raptor sales is that Raptor delivers unmatched off-road performance to our customers. Raptor is also proof of our commitment to offer a truck for every customer and continuously improving them to meet our customers' evolving needs."
To address the strong demand for Raptors, Ford will bump production from three trucks per hour to five. Not much, we agree. But building an extra 48 trucks per day, at most, seems like a prudent way of addressing demand without oversaturating what is ultimately a niche market. Check out the press release below for more.

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.