2001 Ford Ranger Xlt 4.0l V6 4x4 - Fully Loaded & Garage Kept on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Buyers ditching expensive European sedans to buy expensive American trucks

The New York Times ended the automotive week with a story that adds numbers and context to a range of other stories, from the crossover craze to the increasing median price of a new car to ever more grandiose pickup trucks. The NYT piece reveals that the shift to larger vehicles isn't merely about the average U.S. buyer swapping the midsize sedan for a Ford Edge. Luxury buyers are migrating from plush sedans to plush SUVs and trucks that creep close to six-figure prices, and the Detroit Three are running Treasury presses because of it. From 2013 to 2017, the truck category — everything from pickups to minivans — climbed from 30 percent of the market to 41 percent. In January of this year, trucks claimed 66 percent of new vehicle sales. At the milk-and-honey end of profits, GMC alone accounted for 11.3 percent of all vehicle sales over $60,000, not just trucks. That puts the luxury truck maker behind Mercedes-Benz and Ford, The Blue Oval's feasting on Lariat, King Ranch and Raptor versions of the F-150, which make up more than half of that pickup's sales, putting it ahead of Chevrolet, Porsche and Lexus on the high-dollar sales list. The average transaction price of a GMC in Denali trim last year was $56,000; it's easy to see why, when one dealer told the NYT he just swapped a 2012 BMW 550i for a $71,000 GMC Sierra Denali. That truck starts at $52,900. The NYT started its story with a buyer who took home a Ford Raptor instead of an Audi A6, and optioned that $50,020 Ford Raptor close to $80,000. Over at Lincoln, the new $72,055 Navigator — the one so popular that Ford will increase production — crossed hands for an average sale price of $77,000 in January. And a Jeep dealer told the NYT that the two $93,000 Trackhawks he had on his lot "won't be here more than a few weeks." While trucks head up in sales volume and price, cars are headed so viciously in the opposite direction that "the Detroit Three and even some foreign manufacturers acknowledge they are now losing money on many of the cars they sell." So ... get ready for a lot more crossovers and trucks. Related Video: Find out what vehicle is right for you. Give our Car Finder tool a try.

2013 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor Supercrew

I'm not normally a pickup kind of guy, but the 2013 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor won me over nearly instantly. The street-legal trophy truck - there is really no other way to accurately describe it - is big, brawny and incredibly capable. Let's just say it's every bit the monster it visually portrays. I spent a week pretending I was one of Ford's Baja 1000 drivers, but lacking desert sand, I headed into the local mountains where a mild winter storm had dropped a couple inches of fresh snow on my favorite off-road park. The Ford was, for the most part, practically unstoppable.
Ford offers its SVT Raptor package on Supercab and Supercrew platforms with the five-foot, five-inch bed. The Supercrew I tested rides on a 144-inch wheelbase (about a foot longer than the Supercab). In addition to its cosmetic differences when compared to the standard F-150 - there isn't a young boy on the planet who doesn't think the matte black Ford grille is cool - the Raptor has a 73.6-inch track - nearly seven inches wider than the track on the standard F-150.
After upgrading the F-150 SVT Raptor significantly for the 2012 model year, there are only a few changes for 2013. The list includes standard high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps, Hill Descent Control, forged beadlock-capable wheels, and the new matte Terrain color (aka "Desert Storm") option seen on my test model.

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.