2002 Ford Explorer Xls Sport Utility 4-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Submit your questions for Autoblog Podcast #319 LIVE!

We record Autoblog Podcast #319 tonight, and you can drop us your questions and comments regarding the rest of the week's news via our Q&A module below. Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes if you haven't already done so, and if you want to take it all in live, tune in to our UStream (audio only) channel at 10:00 PM Eastern tonight.
Discussion Topics for Autoblog Podcast Episode #319
Jeep checks out the Grand Wagoneer at Wagonmaster

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.

2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E, Volvo XC40 Recharge score high in IIHS tests

New electric cars continue their streak of impressive crash test results. The two latest to go through Insurance Institute for Highway Safety testing are the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E and the 2021 Volvo XC40 Recharge. The former earned a Top Safety Pick award, and the latter picked up the Top Safety Pick+ commendation. Both vehicles got the top "Good" rating in every crash test, as well as the "Superior" rating for vehicle-to-vehicle collision prevention. They deviate when it comes to headlights and vehicle-to-pedestrian collision prevention. Because the Volvo has headlights rated "Good" on all trims, it got that extra "+" on its Top Safety Pick award. The Ford also has high-rated headlights available, but the standard units got the second lowest rating of "Marginal." As for the vehicle-to-pedestrian collision prevention, the Volvo received the second-highest "Advanced" rating, while the Ford was rated "Superior." Among the electric cars IIHS has tested, the Ford and Volvo continue a streak of high scores. The organization has evaluated the Audi E-Tron in both its body styles, as well as the Tesla Model 3, both of which get the Top Safety Pick+ rating. As a result of the XC40 Recharge's test score, Volvo pointed out that it is the only automaker whose entire lineup has received a Top Safety Pick+ rating. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.