Xl Superduty Powerstroke, V8, White, Cloth Seats, A/c on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports says these are the worst new cars of 2014

Consumer Reports has announced its annual list of worst vehicles, a cringe-inducing contrast to its list of top vehicles. Ignominiously leading the way in 2014 is Chrysler, which has a staggering seven models listed.
Jeep nearly sweeps the small SUV segment by itself, with its Compass, Patriot and 2.4-liter version of the new Cherokee, while the only midsize sedans listed by CR were the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger. The new Dodge Dart and the Dodge Journey round out CR's condemnation of Chrysler.
Ford is taking heat as well, with the Taurus, Edge and their counterparts from Lincoln all listed as the worst vehicles in their respective segments. Toyota doesn't fare much better, with its Lexus IS, Scion iQ and tC also making the list.

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.

Ford to spread all-wheel drive across performance range

Car and Driver took a closer look at the all-wheel-drive system in the Focus RS, Ford reps having made "broad hints" about it being applied to other performance vehicles. One spokesperson even said that he "can see this as one of those technologies of the future." That would make sense because, as C/D notes, it couldn't have been an inexpensive job to engineer the torque-vectoring unit for the Focus – one that can send 70 percent of torque to the rear wheels, and send 100 percent of that portion to either wheel if needed. C/D also clues into the system's close similarity to the AWD unit in the recently updated Range Rover Evoque, which is manufactured by Sweden's GKN Driveline. In the Evoque, torque vectoring is brake based and two electronically controlled clutches turn the Range into a front-wheel-drive crossover under 22 miles per hour. Ford wouldn't comment on the GKN Driveline connection, or even if there is one. No matter where it might come from, more performance Fords are good for every enthusiast, and we do not look an AWD, torque-vectoring gift horse in the mouth. Featured Gallery 2016 Ford Focus RS News Source: Car and Driver Ford Technology Hatchback Performance