2011 F-250 Fx-4 Super Cab Diesel Super Clean on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalls 1.48 million F-150s for transmission, plus other models

Weeks after recalling more than 800,000 F-Series pickup trucks for a fire risk, Ford has issued another separate recall for approximately 1.48 million 2011-2013 F-150s for a transmission fault. The six-speed automatics could unexpectedly downshift into first gear without warning. Ford and Lincoln tangentially issued much smaller recalls for the Mustang, Continental, Nautilus, and Navigator. According to Ford, some 2011-2013 model year F-150 pickups with six-speed automatic transmissions could "experience an intermittent loss of the transmission output speed sensor signal to the powertrain control module." This could potentially cause the trucks to temporarily downshift, which could be dangerous if it occurs while driving. Of the 1.48 million affected trucks, 1.26 million are in the U.S. while 221,000 are in Canada. Thus far, Ford knows of five reported accidents involving the issue. To remedy the problem, owners can take their trucks to dealers to update the power control module software. Ford also issued recalls for about 4,350 2019 Mustangs, Lincoln Nautiluses, and Lincoln Navigators in the U.S. and Canada due to a possible fault with the instrument clusters. Although there have been no reports of accidents, Ford says the instrument panel clusters assemblies might be blank or not turn out when the vehicle is started. Additionally, Ford issued a third recall for 28,200 2017-2019 Lincoln Continentals in the U.S. and Canada. Ford says silicon contamination might build up inside the door latch motor, causing it to malfunction. As a result, the door latch might not always fully engage, and the doors could possibly open unexpectedly. Despite no reports of accidents, Ford will remove and replace door latch assemblies on all doors for those affected by the defect. If any of these apply to a vehicle you own, contact Ford to discuss whether it is included in any of these recalls and have the vehicle checked out at a Ford dealership.

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.

Lincoln Aviator could make a comeback

The idea of Lincoln dropping its alphanumeric scheme in favor of real names was welcomed by fans of the marque and even appeared possible after the rousing reception to the Continental concept. Now, rumors suggest that the next of the luxury brand's nameplates to see a possible revival just might be the Aviator. Don't get your hopes up quite yet, though. The Truth About Cars admits that this tip comes from a second-hand source, but the person reports that Lincoln has a project codenamed Aviator as a model based on the Explorer. There's evidence to give the rumor some shaky support, though. Ford already has the trademarks for the name and AV8R. Also, an Explorer-based vehicle in 2019 is included for the brand's predictions in the recent Car Wars forecast. Autoblog reached out to company spokesperson Sam Locricchio, but he would not speculate about future products. The same source claims to The Truth About Cars that the Blue Oval might not replace the Ford Flex or Lincoln MKT when the current generations come to an end. Also, the next-gen Expedition and Navigator could use 10-speed automatics and follow the F-150 to get aluminum bodies, which is also already rumored. Although, all of this should be taken with a big grain of salt until anything more official has arrived. Lincoln spokesperson Stephane Cesareo gave The Truth About Cars no comment on the rumor, but said, "By 2020, we expect to expand the segments that we participate in by adding two new nameplates to the Lincoln brand. We have not provided any indications about the products or their names." Related Video: