2013 Xlt New 5.4l V8 24v Automatic Rwd Suv Moonroof 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 F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video:

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.