1953 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton Pickup on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

Compact SUV Comparison: Specs, pics and reviews of every brand's crossover

Honda CR-V vs Toyota RAV4. Chevy Equinox vs Ford Escape. Mazda CX-5 vs Subaru Forester. Whichever combinations of compact crossover SUV you're considering, there's probably a comparison test or chart out there to read. Heck, you can even create a three-car comparison yourself here at Autoblog. However, if you want a bunch of that information all in one convenient place, well, here it is. Our mega comparison of specs, features and photos of compact SUV entries from every mainstream manufacturer that sells them. That includes the 2018 Chevrolet Equinox, 2018 Ford Escape, 2018 GMC Terrain, 2018 Honda CR-V, 2018 Hyundai Tucson, 2019 Jeep Cherokee (it's already on sale with notable changes from 2018), 2018 Jeep Compass, 2018 Kia Sportage, 2018 Mazda CX-5, 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross (none of Mitsu's SUVs are perfect fits for this segment, so we deemed the MEC the most competitive fit), 2018 Nissan Rogue, 2018 Subaru Forester, 2018 Toyota RAV4 and 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan. We can update this comparison as more information about 2019 models is released, most notably the Forester and RAV4. Now, there are certainly some models that are smaller (Nissan Rogue Sport) or larger (Kia Sorento) that could also be considered, but we figured it was wise to stick with those in this sweet spot of comparable size and price. We also included links to Autoblog reviews, buying guides and smaller comparisons. Engines and Transmissions With rare exception, this segment features four-cylinder power. Sometimes it's turbocharged, often its not, but standard engine outputs are generally in the same ballpark. Therefore, we'd recommend focusing on torque output, as it's what will make a difference around town or when passing, and weighing that versus fuel economy (the Chevy Equinox, GMC Terrain, Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5 make particularly strong cases in this regard). Many drivers aren't too fond of continuously variable transmissions (CVT), either, so that's another thing to consider and note during a test drive. As you can see, several models are available with performance upgrades. Besides the Jeep Cherokee's available V6, all are more powerful turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The exception to this would be the Honda CR-V and Ford Escape, as their 1.5-liter turbo engines don't prioritize performance. Instead, they serve as overall upgrades to the base naturally aspirated engines standard on only their base trim levels (CR-V LX and Escape S).

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd