1960 Ford Galaxie on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports: Ford Fusion fun but flawed; Mitsubishi i-MiEV slow, chintzy [w/videos]

Waiting for a Ford compliment from Consumer Reports these days is like waiting for a low-cost new product from Apple. So we weren't really expecting a glowing review of the 2013 Ford Fusion when CR got its hands on the car. The institute's crew bought three different versions of the Fusion (Hybrid, 1.6-liter EcoBoost and a Titanium with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost) to put through its barrage of tests, and while we aren't too surprised by some of the findings, they're still interesting nonetheless.
CR praises the Fusion for its "eye-catching" design and says that the sportier Titanium trim level is the best-handling midsize sedan they've ever tested, but that's about where the good news ends for Ford. The Fusion Hybrid also posted the best-ever fuel economy CR has recorded in a midsize sedan, but the only problem is that their number was 39 miles per gallon combined - far less than Ford's 47 mpg rating for city, highway and combined. As expected, CR also dinged the Fusion for its MyFord Touch, but some of the other gripes about the car include a cramped cabin and poor fit and finish.
Other Ford products tested this time around include the Focus Electric and C-Max Hybrid. Like the Fusion, CR's observed fuel economy of 37 mpg for the C-Max fell well short of Ford's advertised 47-mpg rating, and both cars were criticized for the use of MyFord Touch. CR notes that the Focus Electric's interior is also cramped, with the battery pack taking up a lot of cargo space.

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).

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.