1955 Ford Victoria Two Door Hard Top- Rare Find on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford recalls more than 550,000 trucks and SUVs for various safety issues

Ford announced safety recalls for its current F-150 pickup along with several Ford and Lincoln crossovers early Wednesday. The recalls cover more than 550,000 vehicles and address various safety defects, ranging from a fire hazard to potential loss of braking power.  The most far-reaching of the recalls covers approximately 550,000 examples of the 2015-2018 Ford Edge and 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX, which may have been assembled with defective front brake jounce hoses (also commonly referred to as "flex lines"). These hoses run from fixed points on the chassis to the individual front brake calipers. Defective hoses could potentially rupture, allowing brake fluid to leak and resulting in a loss of braking function. Ford will replace the components in question with revised parts.  The next-largest recall is for roughly 3,000 2020 Lincoln Corsair crossovers. The affected models may have been assembled without proper clearance between their rear suspension springs and toe link brackets. The components could potentially make contact, wearing down the protective coating on the rear coil springs, allowing corrosion to occur over time. This corrosion could eventually lead to a failure of the spring. If this happens while the vehicle is being driven, it could result in a sudden change to the vehicle's handling characteristics, and the spring fragments could potentially cause further damage to the car or surrounding traffic.  Ford says owners will be notified that their Corsairs need to be inspected; if there is not adequate clearance between the rear suspension components, Ford's service technicians will remove material from the toe link bracket to allow for operation without contact.  The final (and by far the smallest) recall is for the 2020 F-150. Some units may have left the factory with the incorrect retention nut on the hot lead to the starter motor. Ford says it can cause increased heat generation or electrical arcing, which could potentially result in a fire. Ford says this issue is limited to just a few hundred examples sold in the United States. Dealers will inspect the vehicles and replace the nut if necessary.       

Watch live as Mark Fields is officially named Ford's next CEO

We've heard rumblings of a changing of the guard at Ford, and this live stream from The Blue Oval itself is set to confirm the rumors: Alan Mulally will be succeeded by the automaker's current Chief Operating Officer, Mark Fields.
Mulally, who is 68 years old, has served at the head of Ford for eight years, and his official retirement date will be July 1st, 2014. Fields, who is 53 this year, has been with Ford for 25 years and has been groomed to take the helm from Mulally for the last several of those years.
There's an official press release that you can read, but if you're more of a visual person, you're welcome to watch the live video feed of the announcement down below.

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.