1965 Ford Falcon Futura 4.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.

Reflecting on the Ford GT on its 10-year anniversary

Ten years ago, during the bright-eyed enthusiasm of the early 2000s and before the collective automotive industry did its best Titanic impression, we had the Ford GT. An everyman's supercar like there'd never been (remember, this was before 638-horsepower Corvettes were a thing), the GT arrived with a supercharged, 5.4-liter V8 that produced 550 horsepower and graced this retro-styled rocket with an easy, sub-four-second sprint to 60 miles per hour.
Equal to the GT's performance were its looks. Inspired by the GT40 racers that dominated Le Mans and bested Ferrari in the 1960s, the sleek, low, almost-reptilian look of the GT was the absolute pinnacle of the retro styling that so defined the early 2000s.
Crank and Piston put together a video celebrating the ten-year-old GT, arguing that Ford is a bit too busy with the next-gen Mustang, which turns 50 next week, to do it themselves. In the short clip, there is gratuitous engine noise and supercharger whine, not to mention scenes of the white-on-red GT prowling the deserts and streets of Dubai. It's a bit short, but very nicely shot. Scroll down, have a look and be sure to turn up those speakers before getting started.

Weekly Recap: Marchionne's Manifesto again calls for industry consolidation

Sergio Marchionne isn't taking no for an answer. Despite public rebuffs from General Motors and Ford, the leader of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles continues to push for consolidation within the auto industry. His latest assertion came Wednesday when he said a combination of FCA with another automaker could net savings of $5 billion or more annually. No, this isn't about selling his company, he claimed, it's about cutting costs. Put simply, the auto industry wastes money, Marchionne said during FCA's earnings conference call. Companies invest billions to develop basic components that all cars use, but many consumers don't care how they work or recognize the differences. "About half of this is really relevant in terms of positioning the car in the marketplace," he said. "The other half, in our view, is stuff which is neither visible to the consumer nor is it relevant to the consumer." In 2014, top automakers spent more than $100 million on product development, FCA estimated. Marchionne said consolidation could save up to $1 billion on powertrains alone, noting that almost every automaker offers four- and six-cylinder engines. Not everyone has to make their own, he contended. "The consumer could not give a flying leap whose engines we are using because they are irrelevant to the buying decision." That's pretty provocative for enthusiasts, but less so for average consumers. Still, there are major differences in power and efficiency ratings, even among similar engines. Skeptics could argue consolidation would also weaken competition and reduce choices for car buyers. Marchionne stressed his presentation, curiously entitled Confessions of a Capital Junkie, wouldn't require closing factories or dealerships. It's not his final "big deal" as CEO, intent to sell FCA, or a way to elevate his company up the automotive food chain. He claims he wants to fundamentally change the industry and its habit for burning cash. "The horrible part about this, and the thing that I find most offensive, is that the capital consumption rate is duplicative," he said. "It doesn't deliver real value to the consumer and it is in its purest form, economic waste." Other News & Notes Ford Profits dip in first quarter Ford profits fell $65 million to $924 million in the first quarter, hampered by slight dips in revenue and sales.