2014(14)escape Se Awd Fact W-ty Black/black Backup Panoramic Sirius Save Huge!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These horribly misguided front-drive design studies nearly became the Mustang

As we eagerly await the unveiling of the all-new sixth-generation Mustang, Ford has been giving us some great information over the past few months showing what has gone into shaping its venerable pony car. As many changes as the Mustang has gone through in its 50 years, though, it appears the fourth-gen model played a decisive and pivotal role in the car's future.
As is part of Mustang lore, the front-wheel drive Ford Probe was originally developed as a next-generation Mustang in the Eighties before cooler heads prevailed. The Blue Oval has just released a handful of images showing how bad things could have been - including a full-scale clay model of a front-wheel-drive Mustang (shown above). Fortunately, the FWD Mustang plan was scrapped and Ford went to work designing a rear-wheel-drive replacement for the Fox Body Mustang, with three design studies making it far enough to become full-scale models. These include the soft "Bruce Jenner" Mustang, the over-the-top "Rambo" Mustang and the middle-ground "Arnold Schwarzenegger" Mustang, which finally became the basis for the 1994 'Stang.
By early 1991, the design language of the fourth-generation Mustang had been worked out, and the rest, they say, is history. Scroll down for the fascinating press release telling the story of the fourth-gen Mustang, and be sure to check out the gallery of horribly misguided sketches and various design studies that were all on the table in the late 1980s.

Ford offering factory-spec EcoBoost reflashes that don't void warranty*

Buy a supercharger or cold-air kit from Ford Racing and a Performance Calibration handset comes with it to reset the ECU for the upgrade. Now Ford Racing is offering the ProCal handset a la carte for $595, allowing you to reflash the ECU on your EcoBoost-equipped ride to extract more of its inherent capabilities without any additional upgrades. It gives you control of variables such as throttle response, idle speed and turbo wastegate control, among others. As for that warranty asterisk, the press release says enthusiasts can up the power "while maintaining the Ford-backed limited warranty." However Ford Motor Co. and Ford Racing are separate entities, and, best we can tell, when you reflash the ECU, your Ford warranty gets supplanted by the Ford Racing warranty. Say you bought a 2014 Ford, that means your five-year, 60,000-mile warranty becomes Ford Racing's three-year, 36,000-mile warranty, if we're reading the fine print correctly. If you have an older car and have driven more than 36,000 miles, then your warranty options are kaput, at least as far as a Ford in-house option. If have warranty concerns, you might also want to consider having a dealer perform the reflash, or at least ask about it. Once you've got past the small print, what about the numbers? At the moment Ford Racing offers tunes for the 2.0-liter EcoBoost in the Focus ST and the 1.6-liter EcoBoost in the Fiesta ST, and we're told there's a 90-pound-foot boost in torque at the crank after you've pressed the right buttons. Anecdotal evidence from a commenter at Road & Track says he went from 252 horsepower at the flywheel to 254 hp at the wheels, and 272 lb-ft at the flywheel to 354 lb-ft at the wheels, but we can't be sure that his adjustments were within Ford Racing specs. Your mileage, naturally, may vary. What about custom numbers for the 2.3-liter EcoBoost in the 2015 Ford Mustang? They aren't ready yet, but we're told we'll get something by the end of next year. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Focus ST News Source: Ford, Ford Racing via Car and Driver Aftermarket Ford Technology ecoboost ford focus st ford fiesta st ford racing

We compare 2021 Ford Bronco and Bronco Sport specifications to their ritzy Land Rover competiton

The 2021 Bronco and Bronco Sport are the spearheads for Ford's new 4x4 sub-brand, with the former taking the fight directly to the Jeep Wrangler and the latter providing Ford with a more rugged alternative to the Escape. We've already looked at how the new Bronco and Bronco Sport compare to their mainstream competition, but we'd like to see how the Bronco stacks up to another hotly anticipated returning nameplate: the Land Rover Defender.  Not to leave its little sibling in the cold, I decided to browse Land Rover's lineup and see what might be a suitable counterpoint to the Bronco Sport. For better or worse, I found an almost-perfect fit in the Range Rover Evoque. So, how do these new American 4x4s compare to the Old Country's more-expensive alternatives? Let's dig in, starting with the big boys.  As you might expect from the Bronco's robust credentials, it holds its own here against the more-expensive Brit. The Defender's higher price point brings along a good bit of power advantage with both engines, but that's to be expected. The Defender also has that trick adjustable-height suspension that the Bronco lacks, giving it an edge in practicality, and it can also tow quite a bit more.  On the flip side, there are quite a few advantages to going with the Ford, including a greater number of choices in terms of powertrain. The available manual transmission on four-cylinder Broncos is a nice bonus, for instance, as is the option of getting either the base 2.3-liter or the optional 2.7-liter engine with either wheelbase. The Defender is a bit more restrictive in this regard offering only the inline-six on the short-wheelbase model. As an added bonus, the Bronco is a convertible. That may not necessarily be a "plus" for all shoppers, but it's certainly an added bit of versatility (and potential appeal) the Defender lacks. And of course, the Bronco can be had for as little as $30,000, whereas the Land Rover starts at $50,000. Now, on to the less-rugged siblings. The specs here are actually a little tighter in most respects, but the powertrain story is almost identical. The Evoque checks in where the Bronco Sport tops out, and the Range Rover gets an optional high-output variant of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four.