1927 Ford Model T Phaeton/touring 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.

Ford bringing production F-150 to Detroit with Atlas styling and Alcoa blast shields

According to a report in Bloomberg, the 2015 Ford F-150 will indeed be showing up at the Detroit Auto Show next month. It will bring attitude with it, not only in the form of sheetmetal inspired by the Atlas concept (pictured) that appeared at the 2013 Detroit show but also in the Alcoa military blast shields among the display being used to showcase the ruggedness of aluminum.
There's been a lot of talk about the F-150 switching to aluminum body panels (although maintaining a steel frame), and for good reason. The lightweight body is expected to shed more than 700 pounds and greatly increase its highway mileage, but production-line issues and possible delays have been a major focus of attention concerning the best-selling vehicle in America for 32 years, meaning Ford has to get it right. F-150 is responsible for a massive portion of the company's global profits and it will come in a year when company profits are already predicted to decline because of new car launches.
When it comes to dings, the Bloomberg story says Ford wants Alcoa to supply some of the military-grade aluminum it uses for blast shields on battlefield vehicles to help it talk up the toughness of aluminum. Reading commentary on the many stories about the F-150 reveals there are many more little questions about the aluminum overhaul, like "How much will it cost to repair and insure?" and "How will companies hang their magnetic signs?" Answers should start coming in a couple of weeks.

Ford recalling 12,300 2015 F-150 pickups

Ford is recalling 12,300 of its new 2015 F-150 pickup trucks in North America. According to the automaker, an upper l-shaft may have been riveted improperly on these trucks, which can cause it to separate. If that happens, drivers may lose steering control without warning. Yikes. The affected trucks were built at Ford's Kansas City Assembly Plant between March 21 and 25, as well as the Dearborn Truck Plant between March 21 and 30. There are 12,328 total trucks included in this recall – 8,963 in the United States, 3,348 in Canada, and 17 in Mexico. Only 5,606 of the trucks are in customers' hands, the rest have yet to be sold. Ford is not aware of any accidents or injuries related to this problem, but knows of one incident where steering control was lost, and believes it to be related to this issue. Scroll down for Ford's official statement. Related Video: FORD ISSUES SAFETY RECALL FOR CERTAIN 2015 FORD F-150 VEHICLES IN NORTH AMERICA FOR UPPER I-SHAFT RIVET ISSUE Ford Motor Company is issuing a safety recall for approximately 12,300 2015-model Ford F-150 vehicles in North America for an upper I-shaft that might have been riveted improperly, potentially causing it to separate. If that happens, it could result in the loss of steering control without warning, increasing the risk of a crash. Ford is not aware of any accidents or injuries, but is aware of one report of loss of steering believed to be related to this condition. Affected vehicles include certain 2015 F-150 vehicles built at Kansas City Assembly Plant from March 19, 2015 to March 21, 2015 and certain 2015 F-150 vehicles built at Dearborn Truck Plant from March 21, 2015 to March 30, 2015. There are 12,328 vehicles that might be affected in North America, including 8,963 in the United States and federalized territories, 3,348 in Canada and 17 in Mexico. Of those, 6,722 vehicles are unsold, meaning 5,606 vehicles are in customer's hands. Dealers will inspect the upper I-shaft assembly and replace it if necessary at no cost to the customer.