1997 Ford Ranger Xl Standard Cab Pickup 2-door 2.3l 5speed 4cylinder 2wd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford adding stop-start to all major model lines

Ford has gone all-in on its efforts to offer most of its new vehicles with a fuel-efficient EcoBoost engine, but the automaker is reportedly preparing to take another big step toward improving vehicle efficiency. Automotive News is reporting that Ford will soon expand the availability of start-stop technology, which was first offered - presumably the first non-hybrid vehicle, that is - on the 2013 Fusion (equipped with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine) as a $295 option.
The benefit of start-stop is reduced fuel consumption as it shuts the engine off at long stops, and AN quotes Ford as saying that drivers can save more than $1,000 on fuel costs over five years. Despite this, the option hasn't been popular on the Fusion thus far, but it could be more beneficial on bigger vehicles like the F-150. Ford also said that the next-gen Edge, which was previewed in concept form at the LA Auto Show, will be equipped with auto start-stop to help make the EcoBoost engines even more efficient.

Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid nab five-star ratings from NHTSA

Ford's Fusion and Fusion Hybrid have both received the highest five-star overall safety rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The rating is a big upgrade for the Fusion, which was completely redesigned for 2013. The previous model fell one star short of the top rating, after scoring only three stars in the frontal crash test and four stars in the side crash test and rollover evaluations. The 2013 Fusion received four stars in side crash and rollover testing and a full five stars in the front crash test.
Test results for the 2013 Fusion and Fusion Hybrid were greatly improved at least in part due to Ford's Personal Safety System. The system utilizes smarter sensors to gather crash data and tailor the car's restraint systems to the occupants. Seatbelt usage and seat position are taken into account to ensure airbags deploy with less pressure for smaller drivers, more for larger drivers.
The 2013 Fusion twins also received the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick+ designation. Read the official press release below.

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.