Leaderboard

Say what?

I've heard of people that want to outlaw flying because air travel proportionally contributes a good amount of pollution per person served, same thing with meat eating. But I've yet to hear of any serious proposal to institute legislation limiting air travel or meat eating. That's a pretty far out there idea that as they say is going no where fast. Per https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html on a per capita basis only Saudi Arabia and Australia contribute more . And on a total Carbon Dioxide basis only China contributes more. So as one of the leading contributors and as leader of the Free World - what we do has a huge and important impact.

"climate change alarmists" always love labels like that it, it speaks volumes. Problem is those who throw this term around apparently are referring to the vast majority of the scientific community that believes global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it? But hey, I'm sure some of those folks have uncles that were scientists so their superior knowledge of Earth Sciences is baked into their blood which sure beats disciplined analysis based on proven scientific principles.

I think we'll see an initial jump as people buy the new models, but once baby Bronco comes online, I do think it'll eat into Escape sales resulting in them leveling off, but Ford overall will get a jump overall in the compact segment).

I would even say it's still as good as the Camcords and way better than the Koreans and Nissans.

Auto manufacturers, including Ford, have stated many times that they as long as the fuel/emission standards apply to everyone they can meet the standards. And its not California setting the standard for the rest of the Country or even the group of states representing 40% of the car sales. Auto manufacturers are free to sell different versions of their cars. But they negotiated a deal on auto efficiency that they can live with and at the same time it moves the needle forward on efficiency, which is a good thing! Trump's claim that it brings in the new fleet quicker is short sighted. Ultimately the fleet is going to turn over - but the true, long term fix is advancing the technology to provide alternative propulsion systems for our cars and Trucks. And continually raising the efficiency - MPG/Emission - standards in a manner that the auto industry can live with is the way to do it. Granted slashing regulations will likely provide a short boost in economic activity - but isn't his record deficit spending enough to accomplish that. The Administration after Trump is going to be facing a huge challenge when the next recession hits - with interest rates already being pushed down and record deficit spending happening during the growth cycle, what tools will be available to stimulate the economy when it needs to be stimulated? Trump's administration on this is being guided by a mix of interests such as support from the fossil fuel industry, pandering to those that don't believe increasing CO2 concentrations or other pollutants in the air is a problem, and perhaps those that want cars to be made solely from steel and as body on frame with carburetors. I mean we are letting a man who believes the reason he looks orange is not because of his make up but because of LED lightbulbs and that Windmills are folly because when the wind stops blowing the emergency rooms at hospitals will not have power! And now his people want to "make washing machines great again"

FTFY. Sorry but I have no sympathy for folks who go on strike when they're already being compensated at or above market value and there are no safety concerns.

This is a joke, it's 100,000 vans over ten years and it's not Amazon running them, Amazon is subcontracting its delivery business. Van owners will be making as little as $15K-$20K a year...yikes.....

She’s done. Picking her up tomorrow!!! Ah I’m so excited!!

Autoblog

My statement above is not well said. I should have said I agree that those who want to ban Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) probably fall under the no planes and no meat category - but again that's not on the table. we are talking about CAFE standards to provide benchmarks or incentives to industry to improve efficiency. And I think the science that vast majority of scientists (not funded by the Oil Industry) support says global warming/climate change is happening and man is contributing to it. Government officials who say otherwise are ill advised or worse.

It would be hard to believe that the Escape interior would fit in the baby Bronco. That would be like trying to fit the F-150 interior in the Transit.

Yes better materials, softer leather, push button gear selector. You should really go drive one before deciding. They should be out at the same time as Escape (or within a couple of weeks).

Nope

Glad to hear everything worked out for your son, and I too am thankful for the advancements in safety. Regarding the headlights, the headlights in my 2016 Fusion are average at best, however they are only the halogens. I have not reviewed their criteria for headlights to pass complete judgement on it, but I know there are Fusions with better headlight tech. I’m curious to know how much weight they are giving the headlights, because the headlights are not the deciding factor in the occupant’s survivability in a crash.

Somewhat strange they aren't offering ventilated seats on the Titanium. But then again they have Corsair as an option (which Mazda doesn't have). Ventilated seats are available on all Corsairs.

The problem is first it was "global warming" and now to fit additional narratives, it's "climate change." I'm in the camp of I think it is both a cyclical global thing AND that we're having an affect on things. I don't have a problem with instituting better climate-friendly/lower pollution policies, but don't do it to the point where you have to chop off your leg because of a mosquito bite. When you have people that propose concepts such as outlawing flying completely and not allowing people to eat meat because of cow farts - delusional and absurd ideas - how do you expect most people to react? As has been pointed out, the biggest world polluters aren't doing anything to lessen their impact, so we and other countries revert to draconian measures to cause a blip on the radar vs. what improving them would do. And I realize that's a bigger issue than just states. Reverting back to your comment, you think if California instituted a tax like that that the other states that follow California's policies wouldn't introduce the same tax?

The new Escape is the only compact CUV to have the large digital display. The others are a mix. Escape has far more and better power train options. Many of the reviewers like the 1.5 EB to the point where they recommend that over the 2.0 even. Show me a FEATURE that one of the other CUV's has that the new Escape doesn't.

Focus wasn't that bad but my Fusion Titanium was on par with many entry level luxury cars.

yes, but the batteries of choice was lead/acid which can be quite bulky and corrosive....not to mention the lead exposure thing...?

I've heard they even had them way back in the 40s and 50s! (for physician use only of course)

There are electric versions available on ebay and (ironically enough) Amazon.....???

If they use the 180kw battery from the truck/suv that's 400+ miles of range. That should cover the delivery day. Charge overnight at the hub. They could use induction charging, just park it in the stall.

And you can't "swing for the fences" in such a competitive market or you'll price yourself out of that market like Ford did with the Focus and Fusion Titaniums. Great vehicles but in those segments people wanted cheap more than they wanted nice. The 2 pronged approach makes sense on paper - we'll have to wait and see how it works. Having the hybrid and PHEV Escapes should increase sales over the previous model - I'd guess 350K if they're lucky. Add another 50-75K Baby Broncos and you're over 400K and baby bronco should command higher ATPs.

And that’s why I wonder if modern diesel electric locomotives point the way for hybrid tech and greater fuel and braking efficiency for trucks.

Climate change affects everyone across the world. And it is not just California - or me - it is the rest of the world who thinks the same way. There is only one political party in the world - the GOP - who deny climate change. I am not suggesting to tax all the people who don't think like me. I am suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Californians would want this tax - which would only apply in California. GM can sell all the inferior cars they want in other states - just not California and the rest of the world.

Gladiator is FCA’s only midsize truck and last I heard they weren’t bringing back the Dakota. I’m not sure ford could justify having two midsize trucks. I think it would make more sense to have a baby bronco truck so you fill another segment with a compact truck like the original ranger.

Yes, and he wants to bring back incandescent bulbs to "save money" despite the fact that it clearly doesn't. What are the trillions we have spent for middle east oil and wars. If we didn't need their oil we would not be there. World would be a better place.

CARB doesn't conduct any certification test. Car companies submit certification to CARB just like they do with EPA. The work is all done at the same time, usually by independent labs e.g. the guys that blew the whistle on VW diesel gate. And just to clarify, there is currently no difference between CARB and EPA emission. The car companies asked for a 50 state standard during the Obama Administration and they got what they wanted.

It's actually written into law in the Clean Air Act. The Feds can only revoke CA's power to regulate emission when CA deems there is no longer a need for it. Trump can attempt to revoke it but EPA actually does not have the authority to do so. It is a huge Federal overreach. The Clean Air Act allows the withdrawal of the waiver only on the following three grounds: (A) [California’s] determination [that its standards in the aggregate will be at least as protective] is arbitrary and capricious, (B) [California] does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section [202(a)]. So essentially, Trump is directing EPA to ignore the Clean air Act. And let's be clear... CARB emission standards (and by association CAFE because emission and consumption are two sides of same coin) is the current 50 state standard. There is no separate CARB and EPA standards. The auto companies asked for this during Obama Administration and got what they wanted. The issue now is purely political because the current administration wants to nullify everything that the previous administration accomplished. The few auto company that went along with it is basically in a suicide pact with Trump Administration... except they've already pulled the trigger to shot themselves in the face while Trump is still holding the gun. This will be litigated in court for many years and will outlast the Trump administration. Unless Congress amend the Clean Air Act, the courts will probably side with California. And lastly, the CARB (and current EPA) standards is nearly identical to EU and Chinese emission standards. This is why some of the smarter car companies (i.e. Ford is one of them) is saying WTF, why wouldn't we want to meet CARB emission and existing CAFE? It's not like we will see a significant cost saving is EPA lower the Federal standards.

Beautiful!