2000 Ford F250 Super Duty Extended Cab 4x4 V10 With Plow on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Ford Escape plug-in vs. Toyota RAV4 Prime, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV: How they compare on paper

This year is when the entry-level plug-in crossover market really starts to heat up. Both Ford and Toyota have new models in the 2020 Ford Escape and the 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime. They join the segment veteran Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, which has been available in the U.S. since the 2018 model year. And of course that means it's time to look at how the numbers add up while we wait for our chance to drive the new competitors. You can find a chart with all the details immediately below, followed by more detailed analysis. Powertrain One of the key factors for any hybrid, particularly plug-in models, is how little fuel they use. Overall, the Ford Escape is the winner with 100 mpg-e, the fuel economy equivalency for the vehicle when assessing it with a full battery. The Toyota is close behind with 94 mpg-e. We're expecting the Escape to also be a bit more efficient when running only on gas, as it reportedly gets 41 mpg. The RAV4 will likely get 40 mpg, or possibly slightly less, since the non-plug-in RAV4 Hybrid achieves 40 mpg combined. Running solely on electric power, though, the RAV4 edges out the Escape with 42 miles of range versus 37. Behind both of them is the Mitsubishi with just 22 miles of range, 25 mpg on gasoline only, and 74 mpg-e with a full battery. One unique feature the Mitsubishi claims is DC fast charging capability, meaning 80% of its electric range can be restored in just 25 minutes, possibly allowing for more electric use depending on where you're driving it. While fuel economy is a priority for hybrids, customers won't want to compromise on other features. The Toyota is easily the least compromising, as it returns impressive range and efficiency while also providing a whopping 302 horsepower and all-wheel drive. The Mitsubishi also has all-wheel drive, but a comparatively paltry 190 horsepower. The Ford produces slightly more power at 200, but is front-wheel-drive only. While low in comparison to the RAV4 Prime, the Mitsubishi and Ford have very competitive output to many comparably-sized conventional crossovers with base engines, such as the Honda CR-V, Chevy Equinox and others. Size and space Naturally one of the reasons for buying a crossover is for its practical shape for comfortable hauling of people and stuff. In this regard, all three crossovers are very close. The Escape wins out with legroom, the Toyota with shoulder room. Headroom is split between the Toyota and Mitsubishi.

Ford only automaker to make 2012 Buzz Rankings, Toyota most improved

Ford landed itself a spot among the top 10 brands in the 2012 Buzz Rankings. The annual index scores 1,100 brands in 41 categories to determine which nameplates had the most positive buzz throughout the year.
For the third year in a row, Subway took the top honors overall with a score of 40.3, and Ford was the only automaker to break into the top 25 by earning a sixth-place finish overall. The manufacturer earned a score of 32.1 points, which was enough to push it up one spot from the 2011 Buzz Rankings. Honda managed 21.2 points overall, which is still well behind 25th-place Kohl's at 26.5 points. Toyota, Volkswagen and BMW all round out the top five automakers.
The 2012 Buzz Rankings also keep track of which brands improved the most over the past year, and this year, Toyota was the manufacturer with the largest leap forward. The Japanese automaker jumped from just 14 points in 2011 to 20.5 in 2012. Chrysler, Kia, Dodge and Volkswagen all saw sizable steps forward as well. Be sure to head over to the Brand Index site for more information.

Average transaction prices climb to a record $36,270 in January

The automotive sector made a hash of the numbers last month, a mess of pluses and minuses clogging the transaction-price charts according to Kelley Blue Book. The overall industry rose one percent, even though buyers bought fewer cars and light vehicles in January 2018 vs 2017 using the selling-day adjusted rate. Due to January transaction prices rising to $36,270, a record for January, the value of new vehicles sold climbed more than $1 billion compared to January 2017. KBB's transaction prices don't include customer incentives, which changes the complexion slightly; average incentive spending rose to just over ten percent. The average transaction price in December 2017 was $36,756, so January dropped a bit - nothing unexpected, with the month annually blamed for "January doldrums." More revealing is the fact that the average transaction price in January 2017 was $34,910. This year's plumped-up figure came courtesy of the continued shift to crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's read an automotive blog in the past 20 years. That category comprised nearly 70 percent of new vehicle sales for the month. Some manufacturers profited more than others, though. Fiat Chrysler managed 12.8 percent fewer sales in January compared year-on-year, but the company's vehicles sold for $1,300 more. The Ford brand suffered a 6.3-percent dip in sales, but brand transaction prices increased $2,000, while a Lincoln sold for $8,700 more on average. General Motors sold more cars and sold them for more money; overall GM transaction prices rose four percent, or $1,270, while a GMC traded hands for seven-percent more than in January 2017 and a Cadillac got $2,300 more on average. Of KBB's listed automakers, the Volkswagen Group got the most of out its customers, transaction prices rising at the German automaker by 5.6 percent to $42,243 in January 2018 compared to a year earlier. American Honda followed with a 4.3-percent increase to $28,991, GM in third at 4.1 percent to $40,313. Find your next car at Autoblog using our new and used car listings or the Car Finder tool. Broken out by segment, minivans rocked the table, transaction prices leaping by 7.9 percent to $35,380 compared to January a year earlier. Luxury cars boasted the next-highest rise, at 3.6 percent to $58,533.