3.9 Liter V-8, 5 Speed Auto, Convertible, Hard Top Stand, 6 Disc Cd, "one Owner" on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Ford C-Max sales hold steady despite fuel economy fracas

Despite the ballyhoo that accompanied Ford's lowering of the C-Max fuel economy figures, the Blue Oval is still seeing strong demand for the five-seat MPV, as Automotive News reports. Speaking to marketing boss Jim Farley, AN says that the controversy surrounding the C-Max's fuel economy figures won't force Ford to change its marketing strategy.
Ford lowered the fuel economy rating of the C-Max after public outcry and legal action by customers that were unable to reach the 47 miles per gallon promised by the window sticker. The new ratings were dropped about a month ago to 45 mpg on the freeway and 40 mpg in the city. Ford offered rebates for current C-Max owners, with $550 going to those that bought their car and $325 to lessees. The issue, says Ford, stemmed from testing standards that allowed the automaker to base the C-Max's fuel economy on the Fusion Hybrid, because they use identical powertrains. The C-Max's less aerodynamic shape wasn't taken into account, though.
Whether Ford's PR team handled the crises perfectly or people just aren't that bothered by a four-mpg drop in combined ratings, demand remains strong for the C-Max among consumers. Ford moved 3,000 units in August, which was a 12-percent jump over July sales. Meanwhile, consumer demand through third-party shopping websites remains strong as well, according to Autometrics, a data analysis company that spoke with Automotive News. While the long-term effects of the adjustments remain unknown, the C-Max appears to have fared well in the near term.