1955 Ford Thunderbird Only $ 7000 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota tops Consumer Reports best, worst used car values

We often mock Toyota for building boring, soulless cars, but a new study by Consumer Reports suggests that regardless of whether that's true, the company has some of the best used cars on the market. In its report on used cars from 2004-2013, the Japanese automaker had 11 vehicles among its brands on the list - more than any other automaker.
CR breaks the list down by cost and vehicle size, and Toyota has at least one entry at every price point and in nearly every segment. To score a recommendation, a vehicle had to perform well in the magazine's initial tests and score above-average reliability results. It also tried to only suggest cars with electronic stability control. Of the 28 recommended vehicles, Honda/Acura had the second most mentions at six, and Ford, Hyundai and Subaru managed two each.
The Detroit brands also made it to the list, but not in a positive way. Consumer Reports compiled a list of 22 vehicles it wouldn't recommend because "they have multiple years of much-worse-than-average overall reliability." General Motors had the most unrecommended models on the list at six, but Chrysler and Ford weren't far behind, with five cars each from their brands not making the grade. The full list of recommendations is available on CR's website.

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Review

"It's just a V6 Mustang." That phrase, so often spoken with derision and disdain, has haunted owners of Ford's more affordable and economical pony car since roughly April of 1964. Even after Dearborn finally paid some attention to its entry-level muscle car by eliminating telltale V6 features – the company fit dual exhausts in place of the single-exit pipe in 2011, negating the budget offering's biggest visual giveaway – the car was still hard pressed to shake its reputation as a hairdresser's car and rental fleet queen. For the Mustang's 50th year in service, Ford went back to the drawing board, we think with the distinct goal of eliminating the stigma of the non-V8 Mustang. While the V6 is still being offered (your local Avis and Enterprise lots wouldn't be the same without them), it's best to think of the new, four-cylinder, turbocharged Mustang EcoBoost as the entry-level model. But will the addition of forced induction – from an engine that will see action in the upcoming, enthusiast-centric Focus RS, no less – be enough to appease those pony car fans that believe that only Mustangs with eight cylinders are worthy of the galloping stallion badge? After a week at the helm, we certainly think it is. The new Mustang's looks have been covered ad nauseam. Chances are good that you either love the fastback styling, or you think the original pony car now looks a lot like a Fusion Coupe. We'll ignore the bigger styling remarks for the 2015 Mustang, and instead, focus on what's done right with the EcoBoost model. Like the V6 before it, certain boxes are correctly ticked. Dual exhausts? Check. 18-inch alloys? Check. (Our EcoBoost Premium model even shares its wheels with the base GT). HID headlamps? Check. Up front, there's a surprisingly meaty chin spoiler while the muscular lines of the 'Stang's long hood tie in nicely with the fastback shape, which terminates in a neat rear spoiler. There's even a body-colored diffuser at the back, between the chromed exhaust tips. The bottom line is, unless you're a true Mustang aficionado, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between the turbocharged car and its 435-horsepower brother. Simply sitting in the redesigned cabin isn't enough to give the EcoBoost away, either. The leather-trimmed seats (standard on the Premium trim) are cozy and supportive, with plenty of bolstering to help keep both driver and passenger in place while the 'Stang exhibits its newly enhanced cornering abilities.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.