2003 Ford Mustang Svt Cobra Convertible 2-door 4.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The 24 Hour War: Adam Carolla's new documentary brings the Ford-Ferrari battle back to life

Long before the GoPro or even videotape, races were filmed by guys standing next to the track with 16-millimeter cameras. The images kind of shook, they didn't always hold focus, and over the years all the color has faded out of the film. It all conspires to make the endurance racing battle between Ferrari and Ford in the 1960s seem like ancient history. What Adam Carolla and Nate Adams' new documentary The 24 Hour War does best is make that inter-corporate battle feel as if it happened yesterday. Yeah, if you're an obsessive you've likely seen most of the shaky-cam race footage used here before. But what you haven't seen are the interviews that frame the war and explain the egos and engineering behind the legends. It's not a perfect movie, but it's the sort of movie only fanatics could make. And it's easier to appreciate if you're a fanatic too. The first 25-or-so minutes of the documentary are taken up with histories of both Ford and Ferrari and an overview of how ridiculously deadly motorsports were in the Sixties and earlier. It's all interesting (if familiar) stuff, that could have been handled in about a third the time with some brutal editing. Still, the two protagonists in the story are well drawn: the racing-crazed Enzo Ferrari, who only builds road cars to stay solvent; and Henry Ford II, who after being thrown into the deep end of the Ford Motor Company management in 1943 at the age of 25, wasn't going to be humiliated after Ferrari pulled out of a deal to sell him the sports car maker. With one notable exception, the filmmakers were successful in rounding up practically everyone involved who is still alive for an interview. That includes Dan Gurney, Mario Andretti, Pete Brock, Bob Bondurant, Piero Ferrari, Mauro Forghieri, Carlo Tazzioli, and even Ralph Nader. There are good archival insights from the late Carroll Shelby. But where's A.J. Foyt? After all, he co-drove the stupendous Ford GT40 Mark IV with Dan Gurney to victory at Le Mans in 1967. The interviews make the movie worthwhile, but it cries out for more technical depth about the cars themselves. Yes, the GT40 was complex and engineered practically like a production car, but there's no mention of how the Lola Mk VI and Eric Broadley kicked off the development. There's only a superficial explanation of what made the American-built Mark IV such a leap forward.

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

Full-size trucks are the best and worst vehicles in America

You don’t need me to tell you that Americans love pickup trucks. And the bigger the truck, the more likely it seems to be seen as an object of desire. Monthly and yearly sales charts are something of a broken record; track one is the Ford F-Series, followed by the Chevy Silverado, RamÂ’s line of haulers, and somewhere not far down the line, the GMC Sierra. The big Japanese players fall in place a bit further below — not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with a hundred thousand Toyota Tundra sales — and one-size-smaller trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger and Chevy Colorado have proven awfully popular, too. Along with their sales numbers, the average cost of new trucks has similarly been on the rise. Now, I donÂ’t pretend to have the right to tell people what they should or shouldnÂ’t buy with their own money. But I just canÂ’t wrap my head around why a growing number of Americans are choosing to spend huge sums of money on super luxurious pickup trucks. Let me first say I do understand the appeal. People like nice things, after all. I know I do. I myself am willing to spend way more than the average American on all sorts of discretionary things, from wine and liquor to cameras and lenses. IÂ’ve even spent my own money on vehicles that I donÂ’t need but want anyway. A certain vintage VW camper van certainly qualifies. I also currently own a big, inefficient SUV with a 454-cubic-inch big block V8. So if your answer to the question IÂ’m posing here is that youÂ’re willing to pay the better part of a hundred grand on a chromed-out and leather-lined pickup simply because you want to, then by all means — not that you need my permission — go buy one. The part I donÂ’t understand is this: Why wouldn't you, as a rational person, rather split your garage in half? On one side would sit a nice car that is quiet, rides and handles equally well and gets above average fuel mileage. Maybe it has a few hundred gasoline-fueled horsepower, or heck, maybe itÂ’s electric. On the other side (or even outside) is parked a decent pickup truck. One that can tow 10,000 pounds, haul something near a ton in the bed, and has all the goodies most Americans want in their cars, like cruise control, power windows and locks, keyless entry, and a decent infotainment screen.