13 Xlt Ecoboost! 3.5 V6! 4x2! Super Crew! Crew Cab! Trailer Brake! Sat Radio! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Transit Connect Wagon

The last time I tested a Ford Transit Connect, I needed to drive a group of friends to Boyne, MI, for a long weekend of skiing, snowboarding, and shenanigans. At roughly three hours, the trip is just long enough that my friends asked for something comfortable. A Range Rover would've been ideal. Perhaps a Mercedes-Benz GL or Cadillac Escalade. But no, I chose Transit Connect, to put Ford's small van formula to the test. The tiny van was near the end of its lifecycle in 2012, having debuted in Europe in 2003. Its age was reflected in its loud, underpowered, inefficient engine; noisy, harsh ride; and uncomfortable seats. It was so uncomfortable that we had to stop every hour just to stretch our legs. I didn't have such elaborate plans when this 2015 Transit Connect Wagon arrived in my driveway. But after a week behind the wheel, I can tell that road tripping in this van would be a far, far better experience. The most obvious change for the second-generation model is the styling. It's much better looking than the old TC, looking like the high-roofed spawn of a Focus and Escape. There are a few anomalies, though. First, note the word "Wagon" – that implies passenger van, while the cargo/work-minded Transit Connect is called "Van." Next, this Titanium model is only available on the longer-wheelbase, three-row Wagon. With the LWB configuration, the only tailgate option is a single-piece, lift-up hatch. If you want barn-style doors, get cozy with the short-wheelbase, two-row Transit Connect XLT. Regardless of body style, the Transit Connect Wagon's best styling feature is its enormous greenhouse that guarantees excellent visibility from any angle. The interior adopts a dash layout similar to the Focus. The heated leather seats – standard on the Titanium – are nice enough, but better still is that the chairs are actually comfortable now. The plastics on the dash and doors are still hard and scratchy, but fit and finish is solid. And with major contact points and switchgear that have been pilfered from other Ford products, including the steering wheel, the occasional bad bits in the cabin are easy enough to ignore. With room for three folks in the second row and two more in the back, the Transit Connect Wagon fills a role that is more utilitarian and spartan, but not much less versatile than traditional minivans. The middle row seats feature stadium-style raised seating, and both rows can slide forward and back or fold.

2016 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang rated at 526 hp, 429 lb-ft

When Ford debuted the Shelby GT350 Mustang at the LA Auto Show last year, we were told it'd have more than 500 horsepower and over 400 pound-feet of torque. And indeed it does; Ford confirmed today that its hot 'Stang will make 526 hp at 7,500 rpm and 429 lb-ft at 4,750 rpm. Compared to the GT350's main rival, the Chevy Camaro Z/28, that's an increase of 21 hp, but a loss of 52 lb-ft. That said, this Mustang packs some serious prowess, especially in its most hardcore GT350R trim. It sounds pretty wicked, too. It's worth noting that both the standard GT350 and GT350R use the same engine, with the same output ratings. It's also worth noting that this is a flat-plane-crank engine. It's the most powerful naturally aspirated engine Ford has ever made, with 102 hp per liter. Redline is 8,250 rpm. It's a lightweight engine, too – the 5.2-liter mill weighs less than Ford's own 5.0-liter Coyote V8. Perhaps most impressive is the price point for the 2016 Shelby GT350. The standard car comes in at $47,870, while the GT350R will command $61,370 – a big drop over the Camaro Z/28 and it's $73,300 sticker price (including destination but not gas guzzler charges). Ford confirmed the power output news at a media briefing today near its headquarters in Dearborn, MI. Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available. Related Video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.