1951 Ford F1 Pickup Truck Flathead V8 Rat Rod (no Reserve High Bid Wins) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico

President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.

MotorWeek relives '80s coupes with Dodge Daytona, Ford Escort EXP

Get ready for a wave of nostalgia and the rapid realization of the huge progress in performance cars over the last 30 years. For its latest Retro Review, MotorWeek takes a look back at two, front-wheel drive coupes from the '80s that seem to have entirely vanished from the roads today. Both the 1986 Dodge Daytona CS and the 1986.5 Ford Escort EXP were considered affordable, sporty options in their day, but the passage of time hasn't been kind to either of their specs. The Daytona certainly looks the part of a performance machine with a body that's reminiscent of other '80s coupes, like the third-gen Chevrolet Camaro. However with 146 horsepower and 170 pound-feet of torque from a 2.2-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, acceleration wasn't exactly a strong suit. MotorWeek complained about copious torque steer, as well. The optional CS suspension upgrade package on this Daytona was apparently a nod to Carroll Shelby who was working with Dodge at the time. If anything, the Escort EXP withstands the test of time even worse. As a two-seat coupe, you might have expected Ford's engineers to really turn up the performance to fit the sporty image that the exterior conveyed. That didn't really happen, and depending on which model buyers ordered, they got either 86 horsepower with a 1.9-liter engine or the "high-output" version of that mill with 108 hp.

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.