Archive for the ‘Ford’ Category

From the emails I receive, quite a few people have decided that their next car will be either a Ford Fusion or a Mazda6. Might price play much of a role in their decision? I’ve added pricing and features data for the 2014 Mazda6 to TrueDelta’s pricing database to enable a thorough comparison.

(more…)

Over the years minivans have gotten larger and larger, to the point that they’re far from “mini.” If a more compact van were available, with more agile handling, better fuel economy, and a lower price, would people buy it? The Mazda5 hasn’t done especially well. But maybe the 2014 Ford Transit Connect, arriving later next year, will fare better. What do you think?

Ford started importing the Transit Connect a few years ago. It has been available in Europe since 2002. But the great majority have been bought and used as commercial vehicles. But, due to many changes made with the redesign, Ford expects the share of the “wagon” variant (with rear seats) to increase from 20 percent to 60 percent.

The new Transit Connect is certainly much more attractive, with more car-like styling and less tippy proportions. In long-wheelbase form (pictured) it looks better in person than it does in photos, if still very much (too much?) like a van. The short wheelbase version is 16 inches shorter, drops the third row, and looks stubby. With either I don’t care for the combination of the side windows’ beveled bottom corners and blacked-out pillars. If you’re going to black out the pillars, whey bevel those corners?

(more…)

As noted in my review, I really like driving the new Ford Fusion. I even find its rear seat the most comfortable in the midsize sedan segment. But I’m only 5-9, and even I can tell that the Fusion (top photo) doesn’t have nearly as much legroom as the VW Passat (bottom photo). Ford’s official specs (displayed here until we have better ones) state otherwise. What’s up?

My strong suspicion: they’ve cheated the specs the same way they did for the new Escape. With the Escape, they moved the front seat all the way back, measured front legroom, then shifted the front seat to where the X-percentile driver would put it, and measured rear legroom. Voila, 2.7 more inches of combined legroom!

(more…)

Ford offers the new 2013 Fusion with four different engines, a 175-horsepower 2.5-liter, a 178-horsepower turbocharged 1.6-liter (1.6T), a 240-horsepower 2.0-liter turbo (2.0T), and a Hybrid. With the mid-grade SE, you also have the option of adding either a sporty Appearance Package or a Luxury Package. In choosing among the engines and packages, a buyer might want to know how much each adds to the price. But Ford, intentionally or unintentionally (most likely the latter) has made this far from easy.

If you go to the official configurator at ford.com, and select the SE, you’ll see the three non-hybrid engines listed with their prices: $23,700, $24,495, and $25,950. So the 1.6T costs $795 and the 2.0T costs $2,250, right? Yes, and no…

(more…)

For 2013 Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, and Nissan have all redesigned their midsize sedans. Toyota and Volkswagen did the same last year. Is any of them clearly a better value than the others? Maybe the new Accord? Honda claims to have added “thousands of dollars in new standard features” to the 2013. Or, as is often the case in highly competitive product classes, are the key competitors all priced similarly once feature differences are accounted for?

Below we start with the base prices for the lowest trim level that includes an automatic transmission, cruise control, and remote keyless entry (to weed out two loss leaders that exist largely in ad copy). With the top-selling Camry as the focal vehicle, we then adjust for feature differences using TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool. All are 2013s except the Camry, which is a 2012.

Lightly Equipped Midsize Sedans

(more…)

Not long ago, Ford relied on low prices (even lower after hefty incentives) to sell its cars. But in the last few years it has sought, with a fair amount of success, to take a big step upmarket. The average transaction price of the 2012 Ford Focus has been about $5,000 higher than that of the 2011. Are they attempting as big a jump with the 2013 Escape?

Based on the vehicle, yes. The new Escape is essentially a Focus in crossover form. Like the Focus it was developed to be competitive in Europe, which has historically expected (and been willing to pay for) a much higher level of build quality and content in a compact vehicle.

And the price? Well, compared to the 2012 the 2013 isn’t much more expensive. The old XLT plus SYNC is roughly equivalent to the new SE–and the new SE actually checks in a couple hundred dollars lower, $25,895 vs. $26.090. Adjusting for feature differences using TrueDelta’s car price comparison tool adds another $300 to the 2013′s advantage. This is despite the 2013 having a more powerful (178 vs. 171 horsepower) yet more efficient (23/33 vs. 21/28 MPG) engine and 18-inch wheels instead of 16s. So, compared to the 2012 the 2013 is looking like a much better value (assuming incentives are the same, though they won’t be).

(more…)

Inputting the interior dimensions for the redesigned crossover, the combination of 43.1 inches of front legroom and 36.8 inches of rear legroom surprised me. I’ve been in the new Escape, and its rear seat is considerably tighter than most in the segment. Yet these specs from the brochure (and various popular car sites) suggest it should rank among the roomiest.

Suspecting a typo, I checked the official specifications sheet on Ford’s media site. There they have not one but two front legroom specs, 40.4″ and 43.1″, the latter labeled “Max legroom.” This makes some sense, as there are two legitimate ways to measure front legroom, one with the front seat set for an x-percentile male (which generally yields a number in the 40-to-41-inch range) and another with the front seat as far back as it will go. Most manufacturers publish only the first spec, but others (most notably Nissan and Hyundai) often publish the latter.

So what’s wrong with Ford’s technique? When other manufacturers release the max spec, they also measure rear legroom with the front seat all the way back. Ford, on the other hand, is providing front legroom with the front seat all the way back plus rear legroom with the front seat pushed forward 2.7 inches. I’ve entered specs for hundreds of different cars over the years, but I can’t recall anyone doing this before.

If Ford had released two sets of numbers, I’d praise them, as the Escape could then be compared to competitors measured with either method. But the logical complement of a “maximum front legroom” spec, “minimum rear legroom,” is nowhere to be found. They’re only using the alternate method when it makes their car look better. Not only this, but in the numbers car buyers will see they’re combining one stat measured using one method with another measured using the other to misleadingly suggest that the new Ford Escape’s total legroom is nearly three inches greater than it actually is. This isn’t a trivial amount. It’s enough to move a car from near the bottom of a segment to near the top.

Ford has already recalled the Escape for a fuel line issue. Perhaps they should recall the brochures as well?

Last night I input pricing for the Ford Focus Electric. So, how much more does it cost than a regular gas-powered Focus? And how does its price compare to those of other electric cars?

(more…)