2013 Limited Used 3.5l V6 24v Automatic Fwd Sedan Premium on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Xcar celebrates 100-year anniversary with Model T tribute

Never mind the fact that XCar hasn't been making videos for the last 100 years, the British duo have gone all silent-moving-pictures in order to make their centenary case for the Ford Model T, a car that was already seven years old in 1915. It's not a review, but a mostly sepia-tinged look at the car that started the mass-market adventure by taking that biblical advice to be fruitful and multiply and populate the Earth abundantly. Since it looks like Xcar is celebrating some kind of milestone, we've also included another video below of the first Xcar review we could find, covering the BMW M1, from the much more recent past - circa 2012.

2016 Ford Explorer configurator reveals $30,700* base price, Platinum starts at $52,600*

The a la carte menu for the 2016 Ford Explorer is ready for your... umm... exploring. The first page of the refreshed model's configurator reveals the lineup, including the new Platinum trim, and price increases for three of the carryover models. The base Explorer doesn't change by one red cent: it can still be had for $30,700. The XLT needs $33,400 (a $400 price bump), the Limited goes for $41,300 (a not insignificant $2,900 price increase), and the Sport requires $43,300 (a $200 increase). That new Platinum model goes where no Explorer MSRP has gone before, beginning at $52,600 (*all prices are subject to an $895 destination charge). However, since Ford has put almost everything in it, you can't jack the price up too much further unless you lose your mind in the accessories catalog. You can quickly head that way lower down the order, though. The Limited's price jump appears to be due to the voice-activated navigation system, which comes standard; it was formerly part of a $2,600 option package. The Limited goes up by just $995 when specced with the new 2.3-liter EcoBoost, which raises the power over the 2.0-liter EcoBoost it replaces to 270 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, but doesn't incur any fuel economy penalty. All-wheel drive tacks on another $2,000, safety features like active park assist and lane departure warning come as part of $3,000 Equipment Group A, and you'll still have another three pages of options to get through. On the other hand, if you just want to get your family bundle into an Explorer without spending a bundle, the base model doesn't offer any packages and only has one option over $200. Let the research begin.

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.