2012 Ford Fusion Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford F-150, Toyota Tacoma top ASG list of most eco-friendly trucks

No one's going to confuse the massively popular Ford F-150 pickup truck with a green vehicle, but at least it performs well in an environmental sense when compared to its brethren. The Automotive Science Group (ASG) took on the odd (to us, at least) task of measuring which pickup trucks are friendliest to the environment and found that the big seller in the Blue Oval's flagship F-series came up big, while the Toyota Tacoma came up, well, slightly smaller. That's a good thing. Among the 245 light-duty trucks that ASG studied, the 3.7-liter V6-powered F-150 won ASG's award for full-size trucks for both regular and crew cabs. Meanwhile, the 2.7-liter Toyota Tacoma, with its fuel-economy rating of 23 miles per gallon combined, had smallest overall life-cycle carbon footprint and won ASG's two mid-sized categories. Finally, the Chevrolet Silverado won best all-around performance in the full-size extended-cab category. The ASG factored in eco-friendliness, price and social performance (which is measured by, "considering the rights of those charged with vehicle manufacture and assembly") to come up with its findings. Sales of Ford's F-Series trucks rose 8.4 percent last year to 74,592 units and accounted for more than a third of the total 2013 sales of Ford and its Lincoln unit. Check out the ASG's press release below. Truck Buyers Faced With "Eco" Options Galore Which 2014 full-size trucks warrant eco claims? 25 March 2014 [Santa Rosa, CA] – With a myriad of eco-branded trucks hitting the North American marketplace in 2014 – from Ford's EcoBoost and GM's EcoTec3 to Ram's latest addition, the EcoDiesel – the Automotive Science Group (ASG) was prompted to offer an objective, scientifically-based assessment to determine exactly which 2014 trucks actually earn their "eco" badge. According to ASG and the principles of ecological economics, a vehicle's eco-rating must be multi-faceted to include both environmental and economic considerations, and so the Group's proprietary rating platform – the Automotive Performance Index – does just that. Using a unique combination of vehicle data inputs that include conventional specifications as well as social, environmental and economic performance indicators, ASG's vehicle assessments empower consumers to make choices based on one's personal principles and financial requisites.

These horribly misguided front-drive design studies nearly became the Mustang

As we eagerly await the unveiling of the all-new sixth-generation Mustang, Ford has been giving us some great information over the past few months showing what has gone into shaping its venerable pony car. As many changes as the Mustang has gone through in its 50 years, though, it appears the fourth-gen model played a decisive and pivotal role in the car's future.
As is part of Mustang lore, the front-wheel drive Ford Probe was originally developed as a next-generation Mustang in the Eighties before cooler heads prevailed. The Blue Oval has just released a handful of images showing how bad things could have been - including a full-scale clay model of a front-wheel-drive Mustang (shown above). Fortunately, the FWD Mustang plan was scrapped and Ford went to work designing a rear-wheel-drive replacement for the Fox Body Mustang, with three design studies making it far enough to become full-scale models. These include the soft "Bruce Jenner" Mustang, the over-the-top "Rambo" Mustang and the middle-ground "Arnold Schwarzenegger" Mustang, which finally became the basis for the 1994 'Stang.
By early 1991, the design language of the fourth-generation Mustang had been worked out, and the rest, they say, is history. Scroll down for the fascinating press release telling the story of the fourth-gen Mustang, and be sure to check out the gallery of horribly misguided sketches and various design studies that were all on the table in the late 1980s.

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.