62 Chevy Impala New Crate 350 Eng.auto Trans Color Butternut Restored Show Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports no longer recommends Honda Civic

Consumer Reports annual Car Reliability Survey is out, and yes, there are some big surprises. First and foremost? The venerable publication no longer recommends the Honda Civic. In fact, aside from the walking-dead CR-Z and limited-release Clarity fuel-cell car, the Civic is the only Honda to miss out on CR's prestigious nod. At the opposite end there's a surprise as well – Toyota and Lexus remain the most reliable brands on the market, but Buick cracked the top three. That's up from seventh last year, and the first time for an American brand to stand on the Consumer Reports podium. Mazda's entire lineup earned Recommended checks as well. Consumer Reports dinged the Civic for its "infuriating" touch-screen radio, lack of driver lumbar adjustability, the limited selection of cars on dealer lots fitted with Honda's popular Sensing system, and the company's decision to offer LaneWatch instead of a full-tilt blind-spot monitoring system. Its score? A lowly 58. The Civic isn't the only surprise drop from CR's Recommended ranks. The Audi A3, Ford F-150, Subaru WRX/STI, and Volkswagen Jetta, GTI, and Passat all lost the Consumer Reports' checkmark. On the flipside, a number of popular vehicles graduated to the Recommended ranks, including the BMW X5, Chevrolet Camaro, Corvette, and Cruze, Hyundai Santa Fe, Porsche Macan, and Tesla Model S. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the hilariously recall-prone Ford Escape getting a Recommended check – considering the popularity of Ford's small crossover, this is likely a coup for the brand, as it puts the Escape on a level playing field with the Recommended Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Nissan Rogue. While Ford is probably happy to see CR promote the Escape, the list wasn't as kind for every brand. For example, of the entire Fiat Chrysler Automobiles catalog, the ancient Chrysler 300 was the only car to score a check – there wasn't a single Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, or Ram on the list. That hurts. FCA isn't alone at the low end, either. GMC, Jaguar Land Rover, Mini, and Mitsubishi don't have a vehicle on CR's list between them, while brands like Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Nissan, Lincoln, Infiniti, and Cadillac only have a few models each. You can check out Consumer Reports entire reliability roundup, even without a subscription, here.

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.

Driving Granatelli's turbine-powered 1978 Chevy Corvette [w/video]

With its curvy snout and feminine haunches, the third-gen Chevrolet Corvette looks like a dreamy – if dated – exemplar of Sports Car Fantasy 101 when viewed through modern eyes. This particular specimen circa '78, clad in silver and black paint with red pinstripes, appears to be a well-preserved example from the era. Apart from its low-profile Pirellis, slightly raised and slotted hood, spacious stance and a certain hand-painted descriptor alongside its crossed flag logos, you'd never guess there's a Space-Age propulsion unit powering this Coke bottle-bodied ride. Climb inside, and you're presented with aircraft gauges and big, colorful square buttons in the center panel. It takes a push of the "Ignitor" button, a tap of the starter button, and a slide of a T-handle for this nearly 40-year-old sports car to start sounding like Gulfstream G650 ready for takeoff. Yep, you're sitting in an 880-horsepower, turbine-powered Corvette, the only one of its kind in the world. Welcome to the whoosh. What The...? Built by Vince Granatelli, son of Indy 500 guru Andy Granatelli, this curious Corvette came into being by cramming a Pratt & Whitney ST6N-74 gas turbine engine into the donor car's lengthy front end. The same type of Jet A-burning mill powered Granatelli Senior's STP-sponsored racecar at the 1967 Indianapolis 500, where it famously led most of the 198 of 200 laps until a $6 transmission bearing failed, knocking it out of the race. The idea of turbine power usurping internal combustion was so threatening that Indy's governing body restricted turbine performance into obsolescence thereafter. A turbine-powered Corvette sounds excessive because it is. But there are also things about this 880-horsepower, 1,161-pound-feet monster that might surprise you. While it smacks of futurist exoticism and cost a then-dizzying $37,000 in 1967, the Canadian-built powerplant uses 80 percent fewer parts than an internal combustion V8 and will run on virtually anything combustible – whiskey, diesel, even Chanel No. 5. Though it's triple the length of a V8, the Pratt & Whitney beast weighs only 285 pounds. It's also one hell of a robust workhorse, typically serving as an auxiliary power unit for commercial aircraft or a generator in oil fields, where it can run for tens of thousands of consecutive hours before needing an overhaul. To adapt the Chevrolet for jet duty, the nose section was gutted and a sub-frame was built to compensate for the loosey-goosey front end.