1925 Ford Model T Truck,street Rod, Rat Rod on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto sales in March and first quarter down nearly across the board

Nearly every major automaker reported weak U.S. sales for March and the first quarter of 2019, citing a rough start to the year, but said a robust economy and strong labor market should encourage consumers to buy more vehicles as 2019 rolls on. GM, which no longer releases monthly sales figures, saw first-quarter sales fall 7 percent, with declines across all brands. Sales of Silverado pickup trucks fell nearly 16 percent and the high-margin Chevy Suburban large SUV dropped 25 percent. Ford also no longer releases monthly sales numbers, but is due to release its first-quarter sales figures on Thursday. According to industry data, Ford's sales fell 2 percent in the quarter and 5 percent in March. Ford representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. FCA reported a 7 percent fall in U.S. sales in March and a 3 percent drop for the first quarter. All of FCA's brands dropped in March, except for Ram, which saw a 15 percent increase in pickup truck sales. "The industry had a tough first quarter, but with spring finally starting to show its face and continued strong economic indicators ... we are confident that new vehicle sales demand will strengthen going forward," FCA's U.S. head of sales, Reid Bigland, said in a statement. Toyota reported a 3.5 percent fall in U.S. sales in March and 5 percent for the first quarter, hurt by declining demand for its Corolla sedans and Camry vehicles. "While some of our competitors are abandoning sedans, we remain optimistic about the future of the segment," Toyota said in a statement. Nissan posted a 5.3 percent drop in sales in March, and its first-quarter sales were down 11.6 percent. Honda and Hyundai bucked the trend. Honda's U.S. sales rose 4.3 percent in March and 2 percent in the quarter, while Hyundai's were up 1.7 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Passenger-car sales suffered throughout the January-March quarter compared with the same period in 2018 as Americans continued to abandon them in favor of larger, more comfortable pickup trucks and SUVs, which are far more profitable for automakers. The battle for market share in the particularly lucrative large-pickup truck market intensified in the quarter, as Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' Ram brand outsold the U.S.' No. 1 automaker General Motors' Chevrolet-brand trucks. The two automakers have both launched redesigned pickup trucks.

Project Ugly Horse: Part VI

Solid axle? What solid axle?
I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation.
This should not have gone this easily. Having a long and checkered history of simple projects punctuated by much wailing and gnashing of knuckles, I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation when I finally decided to lay hands on the '89 Mustang with the goal of relieving the car of its stock rear axle. Instead, it took less than a full morning's worth of work to carve the old 7.5-inch solid axle from its moorings and mock up something, well, different.

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.