1925 Model T Ford Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford CEO told Trump 1 million jobs at stake because of fuel economy regs

Bloomberg is reporting that Mark Fields, Ford's CEO, pushed President Donald Trump for market-driven national fuel economy standards, and that up to a million jobs could be at stake if those national regulations didn't take consumer expectations into account. Fields was reporting on his conversation with Trump in remarks made at the National Automobile Dealers Association in New Orleans, Bloomberg reports. The report also states that he and fellow CEOs Mary Barra of GM and Sergio Marchionne of FCA aren't seeking to eliminate fuel economy standards altogether, but rather to make them more flexible. Bloomberg reports that Fields didn't cite the studies he was referring to in support of his job loss figures, so we can't independently verify Fields' math at this time. But his push to stop selling cars consumers don't want – that is to say, more hybrids and EVs than consumer demand supports right now – is clear. We've already reported on that. To level an educated guess at what will happen next, Trump seems likely to reduce the stringent 2025 fuel economy targets, perhaps freezing them at current levels. The automakers are already invested in producing vehicles that meet current standards, and they also have to think about foreign markets like Europe that aren't likely to relax standards below current levels. If you consider economies of scale, automakers are likely to ask for federal standards that match global standards for their largest markets as closely as possible. We'll see if Trump buys Fields' math, but Ford isn't hedging its bets. Backing out of the Mexican assembly plant cost the company $200 million – not a huge sum compared to the total value of Ford, a massive company which had its second best year ever, but still an important gesture to Trump about Ford's priorities. Related Video: News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images Government/Legal Green Fiat Ford GM Sergio Marchionne Mary Barra Mark Fields

Ford finds flex-fuel engine design plays big role in emissions output

How bad is ethanol for your engine? There's been a lot of debate on this issue as the US considers upping the biofuel content in the national gasoline supply from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15). The ethanol industry and some scientists say higher ethanol blends show no "meaningful differences" in new engines while the oil industry says ethanol creates health risks. Researchers working at the Ford Research and Innovation Center decided to take a closer look at how a wide range of gas-ethanol blends - E0, E10, E20, E30, E40, E55 and E80 - affected the emissions coming out of a flex-fuel 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis. To see the full report, printed in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, requires payment, but there is an abstract and Green Car Congress has some more details. The gist is that, "with increasing ethanol content in the fuel, the tailpipe emissions of ethanol, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, methane, and ammonia increased." At least NOx and NMHC emissions decreased. The researchers say that the effects are due to the fuel and "are expected for all FFVs," but that the way that a manufacturer calibrates the engine will affect NOx, THC, and NMOG emissions. It's this last bit that's important, since the researchers found, "Higher ethanol content in gasoline affects several fundamental fuel properties that can impact emissions. ... These changes can have positive or negative effects that can depend on engine design, hardware, and control strategy. In addition to direct emissions impacts, higher ethanol content fuel can also provide more efficient combustion and overall engine operation under part-load conditions and under knock-limited higher-load conditions." So, as we head towards more ethanol in our fuel supply (maybe), manufacturers are going to need to learn how to burn it most efficiently.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.