We Finance!!! 2008 Ford F-250 King Ranch 4x4 Powerstroke Diesel Heated Seats Cd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford posts record pre-tax Q3 profit of $2.6B

Ford took in $2.6 billion in pre-tax profits in the third quarter of the year, making for a record trio of months that saw the Blue Oval's year-over-year earnings increase by $426 million. The earnings are being attributed not just to improvements in North American sales, but sales around the globe.
Revenue was up 12 percent, to $36 billion, although net income took a hit, dropping $359 million to $1.3 billion. Ford was dinged with $498 million in pre-tax charges, which are being blamed for the drop in net income.
The news has boosted Ford's hopes for full-year results, bumping it's total profits up past $8 billion, according to Automotive News. The Dearborn, MI-based manufacturer is still expecting a loss in Europe, although it's forecasted less than the $1.73 billion it burned in 2012. In fact, according to CFO Bob Shanks, Ford's European losses dropped by 51 percent year-over year, a huge improvement for the brand.

Question of the Day: Worst year of the Malaise Era?

The Malaise Era for cars in the United States spanned the 1973 through 1983 model years, and featured such abominations as a Corvette with just 205 horsepower (from the optional engine!) and MGBs with suspensions jacked way up to meet new headlight-height requirements. There were many low points throughout this gloomy period, of course. The horrifyingly low power and fuel-economy numbers for big V8s during the middle years of the Malaise Era make a strong case for 1974 or 1975— the years of Nixon's resignation and the Fall of Saigon, respectively— as the most Malaisey years. But then the GM-pummeling debacles of the Chevy Citation and Cadillac Cimarron could make an early-1980s year the low point. 1979, the year of the ignominious Chrysler bailout? You choose! Related Video:

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.