1999 Ford F-450 7.3l Diesel 12ft. Aluminum Flatbed Liftgate Pto 6 Speed on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Best cars for snow and ice in 2023 and 2024

What's the best car for snow? The real answer is "the one with winter tires." What do we mean by that? You could have the finest, most advanced all-wheel-drive system or four-wheel drive in the world, but if you're running all-seasons (the spork of tires), your fancy four-wheeler won't matter much. The odds are, any vehicle on the road running good winter tires will probably perform adequately in slippery, slushy and/or snowy road conditions. (Here's a more complete explanation of why winter tires are totally worth it). In other words, you don't really need any of the cars on this list. With a set of winter tires, countless others will do the job, and even these will be at their best with proper rubber. You can find a variety of winter tires for your car here at Tire Rack. Keep in mind that you will need a full set of four snow tires for safety and performance, no matter what you're driving. The days of your dad putting just two snows on the family truckster to get it moving in a straight line are long gone. Don't get us wrong, getting a car that performs well in snow and ice is still a worthy criteria for car buyers. According to the U.S. Transportation Department, 70% of Americans live in places that get snow and ice. And much of the country has been blasted with arctic air for much of the new year. So let's look at the cars. First, we're highlighting choices for a variety of buyers and price points. Second, we're not just considering snow; we're considering general wintery conditions people will experience driving to work or school. As such, these are all choices with advanced all-wheel-drive systems, usually with "torque-vectoring" systems that not only automatically shunt power front and back, but side to side between the rear axles. Most have extra ground clearance for getting through deep snow, and we prefer those vehicles with more responsive steering, throttles and transmissions that provide a greater sense of vehicle control in slippery conditions.    Acura RDX Read our Acura RDX Review Acura's Super-Handling All-Wheel Drive system was one of the first to offer torque-vectoring, and besides often being touted for its ability to greatly enhanced dry-road handling, its benefits in the slick stuff can be profound. It's actually surprising that Acura hasn't leaned into this capability further by offering more rugged versions of its vehicles.

Ford readying 2015 F-150 drift truck for SEMA

Between the Mustangs you'd find in Formula D and the Fiestas in the Global and World rallycross championships, there's no shortage of Ford drift cars on the scene. But at the upcoming SEMA Show in Las Vegas, the Blue Oval automaker intends to show off a different kind of drift machine.
Created in collaboration with driftmeister Vaughn Gittin, Jr., this custom F-150 has been designed for "on- and off-road capabilities, as well as drifting and jumping." It's got a suspension with components from Kibbetech King and Air Lift Performance to give it 12 inches of travel and comes packed with 5 Recaro seats. Other details remain limited, but if the rendering above is anything to go by, it ought to be pretty awesome.
Alongside the Gittin truck, Ford will also be showcasing another F-150 designed together with freestyle motorcross rider Brian Deegan, packing the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine and a long list of enhancements. Between these two trucks, Ford hopes to extend its winning streak for the Hottest Truck award that it's taken four years running now. Feel free to read more in the press release below.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.