1956 Ford Fairlane Base Project on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico

President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.

2015 Ford F-150 to get up to 26 miles per gallon

The 2015 Ford F-150 is one of the most important US vehicle debuts in years, be it in the pickup segment or the entire marketplace. While we've already known about the truck's engine lineup, its payload ratings and we've even learned a bit about how it drives, the truck's EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings have remained a mystery. The wait is finally over. Ford has announced numbers that put the latest F-150 as the mileage leader among gasoline-powered, full-size pickups in the US, with its new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 topping the charts. Starting with the entry-level naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V6, the rear-wheel-drive F-150 is rated at 18-miles-per-gallon city, 25-mpg highway and 20-mpg combined. Opting for four-wheel drive drops those numbers slightly to 17/23/19. If fuel economy is your absolute priority, then upgrading to the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 is the hot ticket. It improves things further to 19/26/22 in rear-wheel drive trim or 18/23/20 with four-wheel drive. The carryover naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V8 is rated at 15/22/18 as a 4X2 or 15/21/17 as a 4X4. Finally, the flagship 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 tops the range in available torque and offers buyers 17/24/20 ratings with rear-wheel drive or 17/23/19 with four-wheel drive. "We are delivering with the toughest, smartest and most capable F-150 ever – and now the highest EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of any full-size gas-powered pickup in America," said Raj Nair, Ford group vice president, Global Product Development, in the company's announcement. Depending on engine and drivetrain configuration, Ford contends that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost's top rating puts fuel economy up between 5 and 29 percent over the current generation, thanks in large part to the truck's lighter aluminum construction. Obviously, these are EPA estimates, and your mileage may vary – ours has. Recently, Autoblog team members have had real difficulty even approximating government mpg estimates on many EcoBoost models, including the new F-150. Scroll down to read Ford's full announcement, including comparisons to rival models.

Question of the Day: Most degraded car name?

When Ford came up with a not-so-sporty version of the Pinto and slapped Mustang badges on it in 1974, that was a low point for the Mustang name. When Chrysler applied the venerable Town & Country name on perfectly functional but unglamorous minivans, it saddened many of us. But perhaps the biggest demotion for a once-proud model came when, in 1988, General Motors imported a misery-enhancing Daewoo from Korea and called it the Pontiac LeMans. The original Pontiac LeMans was a great-looking midsize car with fairly advanced (for the time) suspension design and engine options including potent V8s and a screaming overhead-cam straight-six. The Daewoo-based Pontiac LeMans was a cramped, shoddy hooptie that served only to ruin the LeMans name forever, while stealing sales from the Suzuki-based Chevrolet Sprint. Sure, using the once-respected Monterey name on the Mercurized Ford Freestar was bad, but Mercury didn't have long to live at that point. I say the downward spiral of the LeMans name was the most agonizing in automotive history. What do you think? Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Auto News Ford Mercury Pontiac Automotive History Classics questions ford pinto names