4x4 Crew Cab Lifted Diesel on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Australia reveals updated Territory, Falcon via Twitter

Ford may have tied together much of its global lineup under the One Ford campaign, but one market where it still offers unique products is Australia. That will soon draw to a close as well, but before it does, the Blue Oval's Aussie operations are rolling out refreshed versions of its two unique products. For the moment, Ford isn't revealing much in the way of powertrain details, but it has shown off a couple of snaps of the revised products on its in-market Twitter feed.
First up is the new Territory. The SUV is neither based on a front-drive crossover platform nor on a truck frame, but shares its rear-drive underpinnings with the Falcon, taking it a step beyond the Falcon wagon alongside which it sits in Ford's Aussie range. Like the outgoing third-generation SZ Territory, the facelifted version is dominated by a narrow grille and larger front air dam, but further punctuates its big-chinned look with more rugged lower cladding and other metallic inserts that bring its look up to date.
And there's the Falcon, which Ford revealed in XR8 trim just last week and is now presenting in G6E spec. If the XR8 is the performance model, the G6E is the luxury version, swapping in more refined trim like a chrome-slat grille (instead of a black honeycomb), chrome foglamp surrounds, less-aggressive multi-spoke wheels (instead of five-spokes) and a flatter hood (instead of a power bulge). Otherwise, it looks essentially the same as the one we saw last week, its facelift bringing it more in line with the smaller, front-drive Mondeo (which we know here as the Fusion) and other members of the Ford family.

2018 Ford Expedition vs other big SUVs: How it compares on paper

With our Alex Kierstein rightly impressed in his first-drive review of the new 2018 Ford Expedition, we decided to dig a little deeper into the numbers, and we came up with the spreadsheet below to highlight how the new 2018 Expedition compares on paper to its main full-size SUV competitors: the 2018 Chevy Tahoe and Suburban (and therefore the 2018 GMC Yukon), 2018 Toyota Sequoia and 2018 Nissan Armada. We also threw in the new, even bigger 2018 Chevrolet Traverse since, as you'll see, its massive dimensions should put it on the radar for anyone who needs loads of passenger and cargo space but doesn't care as much about towing. A few notes about the chart above. First, the 6.2-liter V8 that's included with the new-for-2018 Tahoe RST trim level is the standard engine on the GMC Yukon Denali. You can apply most of the Tahoe's numbers to the entire Yukon and Yukon XL lineup. Second, though we highlighted categories where the Traverse led, we also highlighted the runner-up full-size SUV, since this was ultimately about that segment. Traverse numbers are broadly applicable to the new Buick Enclave. Related Video: Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan Toyota SUV Comparison consumer ford expedition gmc yukon chevy traverse toyota sequoia nissan armada chevrolet tahoe ford expedition max

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.