2001 Ford F-150 Supercrew on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This Ford F-150 might have a Land Rover turbodiesel V6

Our spy photographers just caught this Ford F-150 driving around Dearborn, wearing camouflage around the bed – not so unusual near Ford's headquarters. What's interesting with this particular mule is that it might be packing a Jaguar-Land Rover turbodiesel V6. As with the Super Duty, the F-150 prototype pictured here sports a Venturi exhaust tip popping out the side of the rear bumper behind the wheel, which – along with the sound reported by our shutterbug – suggests that it's burning oil up front. That could mean Ford has found another application for the 3.2-liter, five-cylinder Power Stroke diesel that it just federalized for the Transit van. However our sources suggest what the mule is actually powered by the 3.0-liter Lion V6 diesel that Jaguar Land Rover – once subsidiaries in Ford's Premier Automotive Group – is bringing over for the Td6 models of the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport. The engine produces a respectable 254 horsepower and a healthy 443 pound-feet of torque, and is tipped to be mated to the same ten-speed automatic transmission as the new Raptor. That could give the F-150 the kind of fuel economy and muscle it would need to challenge the likes of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel and the heavier-duty Nissan Titan with the Cummins engine. With gas prices as low as they are, however, and sales of diesel-powered vehicles lagging, Ford could just be trying to keep up with the competition by offering a light-duty diesel pickup. With its lightweight aluminum body, the diesel F-150 could even surpass the Duramax diesel-powered Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon for frugality at the pumps, according to Mark Williams of PickupTrucks.com. He told Autoblog that, "it makes perfect sense for Ford to do a diesel. It seems like everyone is pushing them to do a Ranger, but if they can get the F-150 to push 30 mpg it can challenge the Ram Ecodiesel and even the Colorado Duramax." Reached for comment, Ford spokesman Mike Levine sent us the following statement: "We do not speculate about future products. While diesel is a solution, it is not the solution. EcoBoost offers the ideal combination of performance and fuel economy that over 60 percent of F-150 customers are choosing." Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-150 Diesel: Spy Shots Image Credit: Brian Williams / SpiedBilde Green Spy Photos Ford Land Rover Truck Diesel Vehicles jaguar land rover ford f-150 diesel

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.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.