2001 Ford Mustang Base Convertible 2-door 3.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

Wards names its 2015 10 Best Interiors list

Wards Automotive has named the winners of its 10 Best Interior awards, covering a wide but affordable array of vehicles. Where last year's list contained two six-figure vehicles, including the $372,800 Rolls-Royce Wraith, this year's is, well, a whole lot more reasonable. The publication lists the Mercedes-Benz C400 at $65,000 (which seems off), making it the most expensive vehicle here. That said, we'd argue that the entire C-Class line deserves to make this year's list, owing to its varied and high-quality selection of materials. The other vehicle to break the $60,000 mark, meanwhile, is the $60,675 Ford F-150 King Ranch, which has 327,000 pounds of leather lining its interior. Only one other German car, the BMW i3, and one other pickup truck, the GMC Canyon, managed to make this year's list. Here's the full list of this year's winners: 2014 BMW i3 ($52,550) 2015 Chrysler 300C Platinum ($51,175) 2015 Ford F-150 King Ranch ($60,675) 2015 GMC Canyon SLT ($40,465) 2015 Honda Fit EX-L ($21,590) 2015 Jeep Renegade Limited ($33,205) 2015 Kia Sedona SXL ($43,295) 2016 Mazda6 Grand Touring ($33,395) 2015 Mercedes C400 ($65,000) 2015 Nissan Murano SL ($41,905) See what we mean about the mainstream vehicles? Not only is there a distinct lack of luxury brands, it's the price of some of the vehicles that surprise. The Honda Fit, Jeep Renegade and Mazda6 are very reasonably priced, especially when you compare Wards price with the starting price. The Renegade Limited starts at less than $25,000, the Mazda at less than $22K and the Fit at under $16,000. Head over to Wards for a more detailed explanation of why each vehicle won. Featured Gallery 2015 Ward's Automotive 10 Best Interiors View 10 Photos News Source: Wards Automotive BMW Chrysler Ford GMC Honda Jeep Kia Mazda Mercedes-Benz Nissan Truck Crossover Hatchback Sedan nissan murano gmc canyon Interior jeep renegade WardsAuto kia sedona wards 10 best interiors mercedes c400

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).