2008 Ford F-450 King Ranch Diesel Drw 4x4 Nav Dvd 58k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Focus ST diesel estate in track showdown with Focus ST hatch

Diesel hot hatches are still a concept that's gaining ground. Obviously, there are none for sale in the US, but European buyers have the choice of at least the Volkswagen Golf GTD and Ford Focus ST Diesel. What better way to find out how the new, high-performance oil-burner really stacks up than for Ford to stage a race against the gasoline-fueled Focus ST? On paper, the ST Diesel is at a big performance detriment here. Its 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder makes 182 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque compared to 247 hp and 266 lb-ft for the gas version in this race. However while not a factor for this race, the oil-burner does offer better fuel economy and produces less CO2, which makes a difference for European buyers. Ford skews the race results by giving the ST Diesel Estate a two-second head start for this one-lap battle around the Castle Combe Circuit. Also, this is a video from the Blue Oval, which is going to further minimize the appearance of weakness for its vehicles. Still, both STs really get to show off their strengths, and it's worth seeing how the sibling rivalry shakes out at the finish line.

For EV drivers, realities may dampen the electric elation

The Atlantic, a decades-old monthly journal well-regarded for its intelligent essays on international news, American politics and cultural happenings, recently turned its attention to the car world. A piece that ran in The Atlantic in October examined the excesses of the GMC Hummer EV for compromising safety. And now in its latest edition, the magazine ran a compelling story about the challenges of driving an electric vehicle and how those experiences “mythologize the car as the great equalizer.” Titled “The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles,” the story addresses the economics of EVs, the stresses related to range anxiety, the social effects of owning an electric car — as in, affording one — and the overarching need for places to recharge that car. Basically, author Andrew Moseman says that EV life isn't so rosy: “On the eve of the long-promised electric-vehicle revolution, the myth is due for an update. Americans who take the plunge and buy their first EV will find a lot to love Â… they may also find that electric-vehicle ownership upends notions about driving, cost, and freedom, including how much car your money can buy. "No one spends an extra $5,000 to get a bigger gas tank in a Honda Civic, but with an EV, economic status is suddenly more connected to how much of the world you get to see — and how stressed out or annoyed youÂ’ll feel along the way.” Moseman charts how a basic Ford F-150 Lightning electric truck might start at $55,000, but an extended-range battery, which stretches the distance on a charge from 230 miles to 320, “raises the cost to at least $80,000. The trend holds true with all-electric brands such as Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, and for many electric offerings from legacy automakers. The bigger battery option can add a four- or five-figure bump to an already accelerating sticker price.” As for the charging issue, the author details his anxiety driving a Telsa in Death Valley, with no charging stations in sight. “For those who never leave the comfort of the city, these concerns sound negligible," he says. "But so many of us want our cars to do everything, go everywhere, ferry us to the boundless life we imagine (or the one weÂ’re promised in car commercials),” he writes. His conclusions may raise some hackles among those of us who value automotive independence — not to mention fun — over practicalities.

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.