1979 Ford F150 Ranger Xlt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Mustang parts under the new Lincoln Aviator mean good things for Ford

NEW YORK — As we mentioned last night, underneath the new Lincoln Aviator "concept" there appears to be an independent rear suspension lifted right from the Ford Mustang parts bin. And while it's pretty cool on its face that Mustang rear-drive platform bits are being reused in the broader Ford universe, what this means for the next Explorer could be really cool. A quick caveat: The Aviator here in New York is very close to the production version, but it's not technically a production car. It looks hand-built, with temporary exhaust and some show-car touches. The suspension underneath looks exactly like a Mustang's, but the actual production Aviator will almost certainly use beefier components with the same basic design and geometry, since the Aviator will be much heavier than the smaller Mustang. That being said, we're fairly confident that even at this early stage, the Mustang-derived suspension seen in New York is a preview of what'll be under the production Aviator. Furthermore, Ford won't say it, but based on what we're seeing on Aviator, it's a safe bet that Ford will utilize the Aviator platform for the next Explorer. That would enable the economies of scale necessary to produce a brand new rear-drive-based SUV platform in the first place. It also means that the Explorer should be available without AWD — and given the stable of powerful EcoBoost engines, and the competent 10-speed automatic in the parts bin, a rear-drive Explorer has a shot at being a decent driver. Aviator wouldn't go rear-drive-based if driving dynamics weren't important; Explorer should inherit these priorities. More evidence: The Explorer spy shots we saw back in February sure share the Aviator's general proportions. Even back then, before Aviator was revealed, we were hypothesizing that an EcoBoost 3.5-liter-powered version could boast as much as 400 horsepower, if the Expedition's tune were adopted. Suddenly, the Explorer seems very interesting. So, an EcoBoost, rear-drive Explorer sure sounds like something Ford Performance would be interested in, right? We knew an Explorer ST is coming, but with 365-400 horsepower potential and a chassis designed with dynamics in mind, it doesn't seem like as much of a stretch as the Edge ST. And a performance-oriented AWD system is a possibility, too. That's an area where Ford has been gathering experience at a rapid pace. What do we not expect from a new Explorer? A V8.

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd