2001 Ford Ranger - 2.3l 4 Cylinder With Extended Cab, 5 Speed Manual on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford taps Canada-based Multimatic to build carbon fiber Ford GT

Ford has given Canadian firm Multimatic the nod to build the carbon fiber body on the new GT – The Blue Oval says it has worked with this company for 30 years. The global supplier provides parts and engineering to various automakers, and while based in Markham, Ontario it has 12 plants in Canada, the US, Mexico, England, and China. When announcing the decision at the Canadian International Auto Show, Ford says it chose them "because they have specialized equipment for carbon fiber production and expertise in carbon fiber assembly," and we've heard that the 600-horsepower coupe will be produced in a purpose-built facility at Ford's factory in Markham. Even better than that – for GT purposes and for possible hints at a Le Mans run – the Multimatic Motorsports division can be contracted for engineering and race team management. They currently produce the Boss 302R racecar in the Continental Tire SportsCar Challenge, worked on the FR500C, and their Multimatic Motorsports Lola B2K/40 won its class at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2000. The first models will roll off the line at the end of next year. Production numbers are rumored to be in the low hundreds, with a six-figure price tag around $200,000. They'll go into production in time for some sort of 50th anniversary celebration of the GT40 taking the the top three spots at Le Mans in 1966. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford GT: Chicago 2015 View 30 Photos News Source: CBCImage Credit: Live images copyright 2015 Drew Phillips / AOL Plants/Manufacturing Ford Coupe Luxury Performance Multimatic

XCAR stages epic drag race between Ford GT40, GT70 and GT

XCAR has put together what it believes is a first - a drag race between Ford's legendary, Le Mans-winning GT40, the more recent GT supercar it inspired and the little-known GT70 rally car. The three mid-engined monsters were all built for very different purposes, and not surprisingly, they come to battle with very different powertrains.
The GT40 is powered by a thumping, naturally aspirated V8. This example, which looks like a Mark IV model, is likely powered by a 7.0-liter engine, although it's not entirely clear how much power it's putting down. The GT70, meanwhile, was Ford's response to the Lancia Stratos. Considering that the Lancia is one of the greatest rally cars in history and many of you are probably just hearing of the GT70 for the first time, you can imagine how much success Ford had with it. Only six were produced before a change in regulations doomed this mid-engined rally car.
The Ford GT, meanwhile, doesn't really need an introduction. 550 horsepower is on offer from a 5.4-liter, supercharged V8, which keeps the GT competitive even against more modern supercars. 60 miles per hour arrives in well under four seconds while the top speed sits at 212 mph. Not bad for a car that went out of production in 2006.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.