1993 Ford F350, No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

From CrabWalks at dawn to post-testing sushi: An inside look at Autoblog’s Tech of the Year Award

TROY, Mich. — On a chilly fall morning, Senior Editor John Snyder rolled into a sleepy suburban park tucked away next to a cemetery a few miles north of Detroit. Driving diagonally — CrabWalking — in the GMC Hummer EV, he made quite the entrance as he maneuvered across the parking lot to the bemusement of Autoblog editors and a few curious park-goers up for their early morning runs.  Snyder got everyoneÂ’s attention, and as we evaluate the latest wave of technologies transforming the automotive industry, pizazz matters. We added "wow factor" to our criteria for the 2022 Autoblog Technology of the Year Award, in keeping with the times. The HummerÂ’s CrabWalk feature might have won, had wowness been the only criteria, but we also scored the technologies on significance and how well they work.  As it was, the Hummer finished a competitive second this year, behind FordÂ’s Onboard Scales and Smart Hitch, which make towing and hauling easier for modern truck owners. The Genesis GV60Â’s Biometrics was within striking distance in third place, bringing the facial recognition and fingerprint tech commonly used in phones to your car. For more on FordÂ’s win — its second straight Autoblog Technology of the Year Award — read Road Test Editor Zac PalmerÂ’s complete recap. Many have asked: Why do Tech of the Year? For Autoblog, itÂ’s been a point of pride for nearly a decade. In the early days it was a way to differentiate ourselves from print magazines, some of which have been giving out car of the year awards since the early days of the Cold War. With Tech of the Year, we seek to highlight the ways experiencing a vehicle is changing. It was true in 2013 and resonates even more as we head into 2023. Cars and transportation have changed more in the past decade than in arguably the previous four. At its most basic experience, driving a 1985 Buick LeSabre with a decent radio and comfy interior was not all that different from driving a 2005 Buick Lacrosse. Just a few years later, many cars had touchscreens, the internet and some means of driver assistance. Ford joins Tesla as the only two-time winner of Tech of the Year. The Blue Oval captured the award last year for its Pro Power Onboard generator. Tesla won in 2014 for its Supercharger network, and the Model S won in 2016, when we briefly gave out a “technology car” of the year award, in addition to honoring a particular feature.

Project Ugly Horse: Part VI

Solid axle? What solid axle?
I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation.
This should not have gone this easily. Having a long and checkered history of simple projects punctuated by much wailing and gnashing of knuckles, I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation when I finally decided to lay hands on the '89 Mustang with the goal of relieving the car of its stock rear axle. Instead, it took less than a full morning's worth of work to carve the old 7.5-inch solid axle from its moorings and mock up something, well, different.