2005 Ford Explorer 4-dr 114" Wb 4.0l Xlt, 4wd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ken Block shows us around his Ford F-150 RaptorTrax

From his Fiesta HFHV to his '65 Mustang Hoonicorn, the inimitable Ken Block has some awesome machinery at his disposal. But arguably the coolest of the bunch is the RaptorTrax. Based on the previous-gen Ford F-150 SVT Raptor - the one with the steel frame and V8 engine - Block's back country snowmobile on steroids packs a set of tracks at each corner, a full roll cage, equipment rack, lighting, jump seats, survival gear... everything he could need for a trip off road. The Gymkhana master showcased the beast a couple of months ago on the slopes of Baldface in Nelson, BC, but now he's followed up with a less eye-popping but more informative clip in which he shows us everything his RaptorTrax has to offer. Related Video:

Camaro chief: 'rock-star' 4-cylinder set for Mustang fight

It was inevitable, the 2016 Chevy Camaro had to have a four-cylinder engine. The archrival Ford Mustang packs a spunky 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger, and everyone from BMW to Subaru uses four-cylinders to great effect to power their sports cars. Now it's Chevy's turn. Again. The Camaro ran the infamous Iron Duke four-cylinder with 88 to 92 horsepower in the 1980s. It was a fuel-economy play at a time when performance was not a priority. After the 1970s muscle-car era, output even for the V8s didn't top 200 hp again until the mid-'80s. Thankfully for enthusiasts, things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The gen six Camaro will offer a 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder with 275 horsepower. It's the standard engine, slotting below the 335-hp V6 and the 455-hp V8. But don't mistake the new I4 for an Iron Duke encore. Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser called it a "rock star" and said cars equipped with it feel lighter than V6 models. The four-cylinder (295 pound-feet at 3,000-4,500 rpm) also summons more torque in quicker fashion than the V6 (284 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm). Chevy expects the Camaro to hit 60 miles per hour in "well under six seconds," according to press materials. The Mustang EcoBoost (310 hp, 320 lb-ft) clocks times in the low to mid five-second range. "We're not doing it just so we have one," Oppenheiser said. "We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character." Speaking with Autoblog recently at the Detroit Grand Prix racecourse on Belle Isle, Oppenheiser said he expects the I4 to attract a younger crowd to the Camaro and will put up stiff competition against the V6 for sales. "I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder," he said. "So we're going to excite them." While we talked a lot about four-cylinder engines, Oppenheiser also elaborated on the V6 (It's pretty damn good, too. We drove it.) and the new Alpha platform that the Camaro borrowed from Cadillac. Here's the rest of our edited conversation. Autoblog: Talk a little bit about the four-cylinder – the first turbo four-cylinder ever for Camaro. Do you have any idea what the take rate's going to be? Al Oppenheiser: I think it's going to surprise a lot of people. It's actually a fun car to drive. It's got a really good balance of turbo noise and exhaust note.

Ford forced to recall Escape over fire risk yet again

Recalls happen. Automakers hope they won't, but they do. And that's alright, for the most part, because cars are designed (and to a large degree still made) by humans, and humans make mistakes. So we forgive them, as long as the problem is resolved. Only in the case of the Ford Escape, the problem seems to keep coming back.
That's why Ford is calling in the Escape yet again due to fire concerns. The issue revolves around problematic fuel lines in 9,469 units manufactured between October 5, 2011, and July 11, 2012, all of which use the 1.6-liter EcoBoost inline four-cylinder engine.
As you yourself may recall, the Escape was subject to a string of recalls last year that resulted in a $17 million fine. One of them was over this very same issue, which Ford apparently didn't rectify the first time around. Let's hope this time is the last time.