DailyTech - EPA Names Ford "Most Improved" in Fuel Economy

Submit News

Auto EPA Names Ford "Most Improved" in Fuel Economy
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 18, 2009 11:37 AM

65 comment(s) - last by Sooticus.. on Dec 21 at 6:27 PM

The new Fiesta should push Ford's corporate fuel economy average even higher

Ford improved fuel economy nearly twice as much as closest competitor since 2004

Ford has announced that a new report from the EPA shows that it has improved fuel economy of its fleet more than any other automaker since 2004. Combined car and truck fuel economy has improved nearly 20% in that time, almost twice as much as the nearest competitor.

The most interesting part of the fuel economy improvement plans for automotive enthusiasts is that Ford is not increasing fuel economy at the cost of performance. Ford is actually boosting performance in some of its vehicles and still saving fuel. One good example is the new V6 engine making its way into the 2011 Ford Mustang. The new V6 produces 305 hp -- only a few ponies shy of the output of the current V8 -- and still achieves 30mpg on the highway.

Ford has also introduced a line of EcoBoost engines that offer very impressive performance while sipping fuel. Ford gives most of the credit for its fuel economy improvements to the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner hybrids. Moving forward, Ford expects the Fusion and Milan hybrids along with the EcoBoost four cylinder engines to help it improve its fuel economy ratings even more.

“2009 has been a breakthrough year for Ford, leading with the launch of EcoBoost and the introduction of new products that will result in further improvement in 2010,” said Sue Cischke, group vice president, Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering. “Our commitment to delivering affordable, fuel-efficient vehicles for millions has never been stronger or better demonstrated.”

Ford points out that fuel economy in its 2010 Fusion improved 21% compared to the 2009 model going from 28 mpg to 34 mpg. Ford is looking to EcoBoost for big gains in its future lineup. The Blue Oval will offer EcoBoost engines in 90% of its fleet by 2013 and 100% of its transmissions will be advanced six speed units. The 2011 Mustang V6 gets six-speed auto and manual transmissions and the 2011 Mustang GT is rumored to get the same transmission options along with a 412 hp 5.0-liter V8 engine.

Ford was the first U.S. automaker to post a profit with the poor economy.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 12/18/2009 11:43:41 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
412 hp 5.0-liter V8 engine.

Now that's what I'm talking about :-) Being that the Mustang GT is about 300 pounds lighter than the Camaro SS, I can't wait to see the Blue Oval smoke the porker from GM :)

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Nfarce on 12/18/2009 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 1

Mustangs are for girls. ;-)

The SS is heavy though. But it still looks better than the 'Stang.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 12/18/2009 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 1

Correction: Mustang V6's have been typically for girls :) The new 3.7-liter V6, however, has some balls.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Nfarce on 12/18/2009 12:58:03 PM , Rating: 3

Well it's about time. Ford, welcome to the real pony car club again - and a decent V6 that gets good mileage and has 300+ hp. I also have a V6 with 300+ hp in my Infinity G35, but it doesn't get 30mpg on the highway.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By HinderedHindsight on 12/21/2009 8:58:03 AM , Rating: 3

You should be welcoming Chevy back to the pony car club instead- they've been gone for quite a while. For years Ford has had practically no competition for the Mustang ;)

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By 67STANG on 12/18/2009 3:33:22 PM , Rating: 3

...and Camaros are for rednecks. There, now that both stereotypes are out there...

I think the exteriors on the cars both look good. I like the Mustang's front better, and the Camaro's back better. The Camaro however, is notoriously bad as far as being able to see out of it, and the interior materials are 3rd-rate compared to the Mustang. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of pretty much any automotive mag/site that has reviewed the two head to head.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Nfarce on 12/18/2009 4:39:10 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
and Camaros are for rednecks

Actually I think both cars looked kickass in Transformers - the Camaro good guy and Mustang (cop) bad guy. And I agree about the interior on the Chevy - even the 'Vette constantly gets pounded for inferior materials on the interior. But at least the 'Vette has a slim figure to show for it (weight). No excuse for the Camaro being so porky - GM developed a bad fat habit from their Aussie car maker.

But, pull up a Mustang and a Camaro at the gas station and see which one gets more looks.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By Sooticus on 12/21/2009 6:24:55 PM , Rating: 2

In defence of the Aussie car maker...
Most Holden made vehicles over here were still lighter than their ford conterparts right up until the last two series of commodore... Which developed a weight problem.

I agree with the quality of GMs materials though; the interior pannels even shrink dont fit neatly after a year or so parked outside. I hate to think what it'll look like in a couple of years time.

I think fords approach to overall quality and weight has been more consistant than GMs over the last decade.

Parent

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By aqwan135 on 12/20/09, Rating: -1

RE: Forget the fuel economy stuff...

By aqwan135 on 12/20/09, Rating: -1

Funny

By kidboodah on 12/19/2009 6:38:10 PM , Rating: 3

Funny how it was Ford and GM that fought mandated MPG increases like mad -- saying it would wreck their business because they would lose money.... and now these same fuel efficiency increases are what they tout in every advertisement -- AND are one of the large reasons they are recovering lost sales today.

RE: Funny

By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2009 11:32:41 PM , Rating: 2

More disgusting then funny and it let the japanese automakers spank our automakers ass once again. This is why I couldn't believe that people got upset about tossing the CEO of GM after his gross incompetence for years and years.

Parent

RE: Funny

By Sooticus on 12/21/2009 6:27:36 PM , Rating: 2

spanking -> understatement

Parent

30 MPG on the highway - Amazing NOT!

By BZDTemp on 12/19/09, Rating: 0

Fail to understand

By danobrega on 12/18/09, Rating: -1

RE: Fail to understand

By rvertrees on 12/18/2009 12:30:05 PM , Rating: 5

You dont by a 412 hp V6/V8 for fuel economy. The point is that If you do want a fast car you can still have alright fuel economy rather than bad fuel economy. There is always a point to improvement.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/09, Rating: -1

RE: Fail to understand

By Creig on 12/18/2009 12:31:30 PM , Rating: 5

It's you that is completely missing the point. Just because somebody drives a vehicle with a V6 or V8 in it doesn't automatically mean that they don't care about mileage. Any time manufacturers can increase mileage while maintaining performance is a win-win scenario.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/2009 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 1

Yes but Ford isn't exactly a leader in this area.

2 liter 4-cyls (F/I) from Subaru (WRX STi), Mitsubishi (EvoX), Mazda (MS3) etc make 300+hp.

The 3.2 V6 in the old M3 makes 315 or so (NA).

Oh, they can also GO AROUND A CORNER.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/2009 1:16:20 PM , Rating: 2

What, no the MS3 only makes 260hp. Replace that with the Hyundai (of all things) Genesis Coupe 3.8 (306hp).

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Drexial on 12/18/2009 1:29:35 PM , Rating: 2

(1996-99) E36 = 240 HP (Euro 316 HP)
(2001-06) E46 = 333 HP (Euro 343 HP)

All were 3.2 liter Inline 6 cylinder engines.

They also made a 2.5 lt 4cyl that made 235 HP in the 80's Euro only though. They got all the good M3 engines.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Drexial on 12/18/2009 1:39:45 PM , Rating: 2

Although to add to that, they do only get 25 combined for the two 3.2lt 6 cyl.

But power per liter they are almost unmatched, especially the S54 with 333 HP. Its more then 100 HP per lt. Too bad the block is cast iron though, and not aluminum. If it had lost those lbs, it would have been even meaner.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Keeir on 12/18/2009 5:36:45 PM , Rating: 2

Hrm

Remember, the Mustang is being rated US EPA at 30 MPG Highway (supposedly) and will likely be 23-24 MPG combined EPA.

The current 2010 M3 get more like 16 MPG combined
The 2002 M3 was more like 17 MPG combined
the 1998 M3 was better at 21 MPG combined

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/2009 4:11:21 PM , Rating: 2

Yes the M3s have nice engines, but aren't quite in the same price range. Though I suppose you could get a used E46 for $30ish.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Connoisseur on 12/18/2009 1:18:06 PM , Rating: 5

wait... you think SUBARU and MITSUBISHI are leaders in the area of Power/MPG? The STI and Lancer Evo make about 22-23mpg combined. Compare that to the current generation Mustange V6 which generates 300 hp AND 30mpg... yeah that's in the same ballpark.

You want performance? Fine. The Vette Z06 also does about 22mpg and generates 400+ hp. Yeah the subaru and mitsubishi are industry leaders here...

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Connoisseur on 12/18/2009 1:22:21 PM , Rating: 4

As an added comment... just because a car has fewer cylinders, doesn't mean it has greater fuel efficiency.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/09, Rating: -1

RE: Fail to understand

By Connoisseur on 12/19/2009 4:27:51 PM , Rating: 2

The point of your original post didn't mention ANYTHING about price range. You were replying to a post about how Ford is increasing mileage while maintaining power. You specifically said that Evos and STI's generate this kind of power, while not addressing the original issue of mileage (in this aspect the mustang is a clear winner). I simply pointed out the flaw in your argument. You really have to curse people out for correcting you?

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By foolsgambit11 on 12/19/2009 9:27:49 PM , Rating: 3

You can't compare combined mileage for all the other cars and highway mileage for the Mustang. The Mustang's combined mileage will be around 23-24mpg, assuming it gets a corresponding 25% boost like the highway mileage will (although that is by no means guaranteed).

Personally, I'm just happy we have all the choices we do. Most everybody can find a car that is a good (for them) balance of price, performance, carrying capacity, and fuel efficiency. And you may even throw in aesthetics if you want.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Samus on 12/18/2009 1:35:03 PM , Rating: 4

I thought I'd jump in and pour some soy sauce on your rice.

The SVT Focus:

.86g on the skidpad and a 67mph slalom. Ohh, and it's 60-0mph braking distance is 119ft, 14ft less than the STi.

All of those numbers exceed every front wheel drive vehicle ever sold in the United States. If you want to go fast. Buy a Mustang. If you want to GO AROUND A CORNER , buy a Focus.

I don't see where the Rex, the Evo and the MS3 (really a Focus + 1000lbs of weight) fit in anywhere. They're all unreliable, SVT Focus included. But the Focus you can use every day. It has substantially better fuel economy, better brakes, hands-down the smoothest shifting 6-speed manual, and it's cheap. As in a fraction of the price.

You know what else too. It's unique.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Samus on 12/18/2009 1:39:43 PM , Rating: 2

Reference: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_040...

I'd also like to note the only AWD foreign import with a better skidpad is the EVO. And it's practically a tie. Yes, a Focus outhandles any Subaru on dry pavement.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By slowdefiance on 12/18/2009 2:32:58 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry but a 2004 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS is not a 2004 Subaru STi and a 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart is not a 2004 Mitsubishi Evolution (EVO)....

Here are the specs for the 2004 STi and 2003 EVO.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_030...

They both beat the Focus SVT on braking, 0-60mph, 1/4-mile, and slalom. The only thing you got right was the Focus SVT is cheaper then the STi and EVO

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/2009 4:19:10 PM , Rating: 2

Why are you even comparing 5 year old models? All of them have gotten big HP boosts since then (Mustang included).

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By walk2k on 12/18/2009 4:33:46 PM , Rating: 1

You're comparing the 170 hp Focus SVT to 300+ hp cars? Really??

Don't get me wrong I like the SVT, but it doesn't compare to the STi/Evo/etc. It's also 5 years old...

A better comparison would be the Focus RS (305 hp) .. such a shame they aren't bringing that to the US.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By ajoyner777 on 12/19/2009 1:57:53 AM , Rating: 3

Actually I'd take the Cobalt SS/TC over any of those cars. It beat the Nürburgring record for cars in it's class (Honda Civic Si coupe, Mazdaspeed 3, Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, Subaru Impreza WRX 4-door, Volkswagen GTI 3-door, Ford Focus SVT, etc) by 13 seconds. It puts down 260 hp, and 260 lb-ft of torque stock. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q1/2008_...

Slalom @69.2 mph
Skidpad .89g

The only nag against it is interior quality, but that's more of a personal preference.

I'm with Samus on the rice though. I get sick and tired of hearing how great these Japanese cars are. Just from personal experience I've seen more foreign cars on the side of the road broken down than domestic ones. All the chevy's I've owned have only had minor problems, and the one I kept the longest, an 86 cavalier Z24 had 206,000 miles on it when I sold it. When I sold it it still didn't use any oil, and drove great. The only thing I put in that car was a clutch, a distributor, and tires. It held up good considering the punishment I put it through...lol

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By hypocrisyforever on 12/18/2009 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 2

Horsepower is diminishing returns. It's easy to boost an engine. It's MANY times harder to get the power out of naturally aspirated engine. The one thing none of you fanboys realize is that turbos are complicated pieces that wear out after about 60k miles. yeah, that 2L puts out as much horsepower as a big V8, but it sure as hell isn't going to last as long. No, i don't drive an american car, I drive a Z, but you guys need to understand that something IS given up for that sweet psi boost. I'm not making up excuses for ford's shitty late model v6 mustangs. I am however saying a big ol' 5 liter is gonna last a hell of alot longer than an evo.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Aeonic on 12/18/2009 4:48:56 PM , Rating: 2

Another issue I haven't seen mentioned is fuel type. Do they all run on 87 octane? If not, this should be taken into account. Either higher cost to drive, or possibly lower performance as the engine adjusts to reduce knocking.

The only source I have time to find is motortrend.com stating the 2010 Camaro V6 uses 87 octane fuel, although it doesn't explicitly say that the peformance figures were while using 87.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/chevrolet/cama...

Also, 87 octane with 11.3:1 compression seems high, but my 4.6L V8 runs 10.5:1 and "recommends" premium, so I can't say I really understand it very well.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By piroroadkill on 12/19/2009 10:06:38 AM , Rating: 2

Turbos wear out after 60,000 miles? News to me. In Europe there are many, many, many diesel vehicles, the vast majority turbocharged, and I never hear of common failures such as you mention.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Keeir on 12/18/2009 5:30:48 PM , Rating: 3

The fundamental mistake you are making is that a 4-cylinder engine is -more- efficient than a 6 or 8 cylinder engine.

This is fundamentally flawed assertion.

A 4-cylinder engine is -theoritically- more fuel efficient than 6 and 8.

However, we don't observe this in real life

The Ford Mustang (2011 edition)
305 hp, ~3,800 lbs, 18/30 mpg?, ~22,000

The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (2010 NA Edmunds specs)
291 Hp, ~4,500 lbs? (mistake?), 17/22 MPG, ~33,000

The Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2010 Edition)
305 hp, ~3,400 lbs, 17/23 MPG, ~35,000

The Mazda Mazadaspeed3 (2010 NA Edition)
263 hp, ~3,300 lbs, -FWD-, 18/25 MPG, ~23,000

So.....

The Ford 3.7L V6 makes the most horsepower, get the best fuel economy... and appears to start a dramatically lower entry price than the AWD cars.

Your point is what again?

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By aj28 on 12/18/2009 6:35:22 PM , Rating: 2

True, but are any of those cars both N/A and to be had for under $21K?

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2009 11:40:58 PM , Rating: 2

Plus all the other cars are supped up economy sized cars.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By Yawgm0th on 12/18/2009 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 5

Maybe I want (need?) a certain amount of power but I still want to fill up less frequently when it's -10 F out.

Parent

RE: Fail to understand

By danobrega on 12/19/2009 7:12:29 AM , Rating: 2

I didn't say it was wrong to want more power. And as I also said, it's obvious that the need for better consumption is not related to the power you want. But that is like saying more money is better than less money.

The point is, if you put the consumption as your top feature in a car you'll never go for a car with a big engine.

Next thing maybe well be seing a Ford with a V8 winning the "green car of the year" award... ridiculous.

Parent

Ford....

By rdhood on 12/18/09, Rating: -1

RE: Ford....

By rockjock2 on 12/18/2009 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 2

I had an 89 Taurus go over 180k. Sold it to a coworker for $500 and it's still on the road as far as I know. Sometimes you get lucky, I guess.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By chmilz on 12/18/2009 12:18:15 PM , Rating: 3

I had a 1991 Mercury Topaz that went over 500,000km before I gave it away, a 1989 Ford Probe that was at 220,000km when I hit a deer, and a 2000 Focus that is at 600,000km that I gave to my brother and he still drives today.

All were pre-owned, and combined I spent less that $5,000 in repairs (not including maintenance like oil changes). None burnt oil or had any engine problems ever.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By nafhan on 12/18/2009 12:56:08 PM , Rating: 3

Yeah for anecdotal evidence!
Anyway, I had a '91 Ford Tempo that had 200k when I sold it. I kind of hated the styling, comfort, and drivability, but it's really hard to hate a vehicle that lasts that long.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Samus on 12/18/2009 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2

All of my cars were purchased previously well maintained.

82 Mercury Capri: purchased new, still own
list of problems: rear end began to whine at 50k, upgraded to 8.8". replaced 4-speed manual with 5-speed manual when clutch failed at 76k. a/c stopped working at 85k and was converted to R134 along with new compressor. replaced window motor roller bearings at 90k. replaced fuel tank sending unit at 110k. 6 sets of tires in almost 30 years. over 130,000 miles on it and has been aerospace-reliable.

90 Honda Accord: purchased at 90k, sold at 111k
list of problems: ball joint failed almost killing me, had to replace sway bar link pins, vehicle speed sensor, ac compressor, drivers seat belt motor, BOTH axles, INJECTORS...all relatively common but hush-hush problems with this generation accord.

93 Ford Tempo: purchased at 110k, sold at 150k
list of problems: rear motor mount, cooling fan, convert A/C from R12>R134.

94 Mercury Sable: purchased 5k (considered new), sold at 63k
list of problems: this car was a lemon. it had the 3.8l death-overhead-cam motor that also gave the Windstar a bad rap. beside the headgasket blowing under warranty, it had an early recall on the fuel pump that caused stalling. the transmission failed at 63k and I junked the car.

98 Mazda Protege: purchased 50k, sold at 150k
list of problems: 1.5l exhaust manifold cracked, common problem. suspension replaced at 75k, I felt thats a little early for a modern car but it was shot. also had various electrical issues with turn signals and the horn. overall very reliable and cheap to fix (most parts were same as escort)

01 Mercury Mountaineer 5.0: purchased 90k, still own (124k)
list of problems: the radio display doesn't always light up when its warm outside. trailer hitch wiring corroded. excluding oil changes and new tires, I think I've spent 40 bucks maintaining this thing for the past 30,000 miles.

02 Ford SVT Focus: purchased 54k, still own (76k)
list of problems: this car isn't meant to be reliable, so I wont list the issues. this car is purpose-built for auto-cross

03 Ford SVT Focus: purchased 90k, still own (104k)
list of problems: yes, I own two, this one is my daily driver. all the common stuff broke: dual stage intake actuator, rear transmission mount, passenger transmission seal, dual mass flywheel at 96k, clutch master cylinder plunger leaked, thermostat housing cracked and leaked, 6-disc changer jammed, heated seat element worked intermitently on drivers seat lower back, o2 sensors, power steering rack whines and needed flush, rear swaybar bushings, alternator voltage regulator wiring, ABS speed sensor, etc. I still love it, even though I spend more time under the hood than behind the wheel.

I get bored of my cars and go through them quickly, and I didn't list all of them, just the Honda (worst car I've ever owned) and the Ford's to put them in contrast. When I find a car I like, I keep it. The first was my 82 Mercury Capri. Then the truck, which I needed for work. The Focus's are amazing, capable cars. The SVT's are notoriously unreliable, but ask anyone who owns one if "its worth it" and they'll just grin.

All of my MAINSTREAM Ford's have been reliable except for that damn Sable. I almost swore off I wouldn't buy a Ford again after that piece...but there's no denying Ford Trucks have been the de-facto for reliability over the past few decades. GMC tries to catch up, and Toyota and the likes try to make a work-machine, but they models they bring to the USA are just crap. Not one Japanese manufacturer markets a deisel truck here, yet they all make them.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By MrFord on 12/18/2009 3:57:06 PM , Rating: 2

The SVT Focus is that bad? I thought it was pretty much as reliable as the 03-up Focus. I was looking at one before I bought another SVT Contour (sold the 99 for a 00). And with all the bad things people say about Contours, it's a pretty reliable car. I'd even go as far as saying that the SVT generally is the most reliable.

All I ever did on mines was to change the brakes and the shocks, plus the usual bearing/ball joints. People think these cars eats suspension components very fast, but it's because they have to be changed as soon as they get loose. If not it just makes everything else take the beating and then they fail even faster.
There's the water pump failure for 98 and down models, but one you replaced it with a new one, you're good. Same thing with the 3rd gear synchro on all MTX-75.
And I agree with you, SVT Focus and Contour may not be the fastest on a straight line, but they're a blast to drive, something that you don't get unless you pay a lot more

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Jeffk464 on 12/18/2009 8:58:47 PM , Rating: 2

You guys are crazy, I like to buy a new car and keep it for ten years and then boot it to someone else. I guess if I had a possible future classic like the camaro, I might be tempted to keep it longer.

PS I have a Tacoma, and even with that I will probably get rid of it at the 10 year mark.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Jeffk464 on 12/18/2009 9:02:19 PM , Rating: 2

Historically ford v-8's have been reliable and all there other engines not so good.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Anonymous88 on 12/19/2009 8:27:04 AM , Rating: 2

Ford definitely makes a good product overall.

The 3.8 L definitely was not one of thier bright spots-this engine also gave the late 80s/90s t-bird a bad rap as well.

Another sore spot is the auto trans in the taurus of the 80s-90s as you noticed in your sable. It seems as most of these cars meet this fate-talked with the guy who rebuilt my 4r44e auto trans (itself one of the weaker ford products) for my ranger and he said that if the trans failure on the taurus/sable wasnt bad enough, replacing it in that car is one of the toughest and most expensive jobs-basically you have to drop the entire bottom subframe of the car to get it out.

in response to ford in general only building good v8's, aside from the 3.8, most of the smaller engines in recent (last 15 or so) years have been pretty good. Sure the 4.0l in the rangers/explorers is only "ok" but the 3.0L lima V6 had/has one of the lowest warranty claims of any ford engine ever built-this coming from a ford dyno guy who is an aquantaince of mine (I live in the greater detroit area) The 2.3L 4cyl in my 97 ranger is another example of a solid ford small motor-its been used in one form or another since the pinto and although the dual spark plugs per cylinder is pesky and its not the most fuel efficient 4 banger out there, it's VERY reliable and can leak/burn oil and still run like a top (thankfully no leaks or burning oil yet for mine despite 150k)

Looking at the domestics it seems the general rule of thumb is that Gm will build a solid power train and then skimp on everthing else, chrysler will make a great looking car but it will fall apart/break down somehow (remember the auto trans in the early 90s minivans/shadows?), and ford....ford will build solid cars overall and then every now and then they will screw something major up, like the afforementioned 3.8L head gasket issue

Good to see one of our big 3 getting praise, I've owned foreign vehicles before (and as of now I WILL NEVER own another VW-late 90s jetta was a joke) and have a great respect for Honda especially, but the domestics, especially ford, can hang with the best of them-I'll take a fusion over any similar car on the road today Now if ford would only get around to making another ranger.............. but until they do or if they don't, I'll keep racking up the miles on mine

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2009 11:23:38 PM , Rating: 2

I know I think I was in high school the last time ford came out with a redesign for the ranger. I graduated in 1991.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By kevinkreiser on 12/18/2009 12:13:44 PM , Rating: 2

anecdotally, i drive a 2001 mustang, and its at 160k. i rotate my tires, change my oil and my filters, and i haven't had to have any major work done to it (i put on new rotors on the front). take care of your cars and they will take care of you.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By 67STANG on 12/18/2009 12:28:07 PM , Rating: 1

1988 Camaro IROC
1992 Chevy S10
1989 Olds Cutlass Ciera
1997 Honda Accord
1994 Mustang GT

The Honda died before 87,000 miles. The GM vehicles/truck did not make even make it passed 74,000 miles (the S-10 lasted the longest of them). The Mustang had 115k on the clock when I sold it.

Everyone's experience is different. By FAR, GM is the worst brand of car that I have ever owned-- Chrysler is coming in a close second though as it is costing a fortune to keep my '07 300 on the road and seems to have more electrical gremlins than even my old E46 BMW. I'll be trading it in for a 412hp Mustang GT next year, knowing I can smoke everything the General has, save for the Vette.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By theapparition on 12/19/2009 3:15:26 PM , Rating: 2

And I once had a mustang that the engine fell out of (never bolted down to engine mounts). Most troublesome care I've ever had.

But in no way do I equate my experience with a 1971 mustang with todays models. You had problems with mid to late eighty's GM models. Who didn't? Almost all american eighty's cars blew.

In case you didn't know, this is two decades later. Ford is hitting on all cylinders and GM quality is lightyears better than those cars you drove.

As for the mustang beating anything in GM's aresenal, I'd wait to make the statement. I don't do paper racing. The SS weighs 300lbs more but also has 20+ more horsepower. Simple things like what gear ratios Ford chooses will make a huge difference in performance. I think both cars will be very close in real world testing and will come down to driver skill. Like the Camaro's exterior more, but the Fords interior more, by a landslide. Even so, both cars are far from anything that you'd call a true sports car.
Ford has done a remarkable job with the solid axle but in real world tests, the slightest bumps could possibly ruin your morning. I'd prefer an IRS for everyday driving for anything but a dedicated drag car.
Still, ditch the crappy retro styling and make something original, ok. GM, Ford, are you listening? At least GM has the Corvette.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/18/2009 12:30:41 PM , Rating: 2

New CEO since you bought... As you probably know he was the former CEO of Boeing. Came in about 3 or 4 years ago I think... He is an Engineer. He has made a world of difference for FORD.

I just bought my first Ford because of this... 2009 Ford Escape. I've had it about 7 months and 10,000 miles so far. It was been great... of course for that time any car should be great. However, I'm getting about 25 miles per gallon on average and several times a week I'm caring 1,500 lbs to 2,500 lbs of extra weight. I'm happy so far.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Keeir on 12/18/2009 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 2

Thought I'd clarify

Alan Mulally was in charge of Boeing Commerical Air Only, which means although he was "CEO" of BCA, he was under the Boeing CEO (Think he was under 3-4).

Secondly, since a car program takes 3-5 years to develop, we are just now seeing any benifit in product quality he would have started.

His main benifit is that the "Star" power allowed the blue oval to do some unpopular things and boost investor convidence.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By knutjb on 12/18/2009 12:31:31 PM , Rating: 2

So why did you keep buying them?

I grew up with a 64 ford falcon woody wagon, wish I still had it, my Dad sold it with 260K on the odo. If you take care of your cars they usually last. There are some exceptions of course. My windstar has over 110k of very hard use with only minor maintenance and my taurus while not perfect runs like a top. My next car will likely be another Ford.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By SavagePotato on 12/18/2009 12:51:19 PM , Rating: 2

My old 1988 f150 had 450k kilometers on it which is like 280k miles or something.

My 87 f150 which was sold lived to over 500k. kilometers.

In contrast I've owned nothing but Ford vehicles and have had nothing but good luck. Save for a mid 90's car that was a lemon which I bought used and shouldn't have. But then the quality of mid 90's vehicles was known for being terrible.

From everything I have heard Ford is massively as well, so I see no reason not to keep using their vehicles considering my experiences with them.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By SavagePotato on 12/18/2009 12:53:25 PM , Rating: 2

From everything I've heard ford is improving massively as well, that is...

As another side note the 1988 I mentioned wasn't done at 450k, I sold it.

Parent

RE: Ford....

By Durrr on 12/19/2009 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 2

Uncle had a 1973 F-100 Ranger that was sold a couple of months ago (he was only owner). Had records on fuel mileage from day one as well as all maintenance done to it. Sold it for 1500 bucks with 890k on the clock.

Parent