1969 Ford Torino on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Yes, we still love sports cars | Autoblog Podcast #490

This week, David Gluckman and Mike Austin talk sports cars of all kinds. We hit the week's big Mustang news, talk about a variety of cars we've been driving, and then respond to some questions from listeners. We also threw in a trivia question for you to ponder while you listen. The rundown is below. Remember, if you have a car-related question you'd like us to answer or you want questionable buying advice of your very own, send a message or a voice memo to podcast at autoblog dot com. Please send trivia questions, too! Autoblog Podcast #490 Get The Podcast Apple Podcasts – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes Spotify – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast on Spotify RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Topics and stories we mention The four-cylinder Ford Mustang can produce nearly V8-level torque for $699 Ford halts Mustang production in wake of September sales dive 2017 GMC Sierra 2500HD All Terrain X eyes Ram Power Wagon 2017 Lotus Evora 400 2017 Fiat 124 Spider 24 Hours of LeMons: Racevan is no more (and for sale!) Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 01:31 What we've been driving - 15:13 Spend My Money/listener questions - 34:08 Total Duration: 53:27 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Fiat Ford Lotus fiat 124 spider lotus evora 400

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost loses big power on 87 octane

The 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is a pretty potent package on paper. With 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, it boasts better performance numbers than the 3.7-liter V6, but with better fuel economy as an added benefit. However, if you're in the market for one of these boosted 'Stangs, you should probably keep in mind that it really prefers to gulp premium, 93-octane fuel. It can drink 87-octane swill in a pinch, but you're going to find significantly less power underfoot when pulling away. While it's not shocking that the ponies are dialed back with a lower grade of gasoline, an alleged page from a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang 6G purports to show just how much power is lost, though. According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque. In speaking with Autoblog, Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost: First Ride View 20 Photos News Source: Mustang 6GImage Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL, Ford, Mustang 6G Ford Technology Convertible Coupe Performance ecoboost ford mustang ecoboost

U.S. automakers unite in opposition to possible Trump vehicle tariffs

WASHINGTON — The U.S. auto industry urged President Donald Trump's administration on Monday not to saddle imported cars and auto parts with steep tariffs, after the U.S. Commerce Department sent a confidential report to the White House late on Sunday with its recommendations for how to proceed. Some trade organizations also blasted the Commerce Department for keeping the details of its "Section 232" national security report shrouded in secrecy, which will make it much harder for the industry to react during the next 90 days Trump will have to review it. "Secrecy around the report only increases the uncertainty and concern across the industry created by the threat of tariffs," the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association said in a statement, adding that it was "alarmed and dismayed." "It is critical that our industry have the opportunity to review the recommendations and advise the White House on how proposed tariffs, if they are recommended, will put jobs at risk, impact consumers, and trigger a reduction in U.S. investments that could set us back decades." Representatives from the White House and the Commerce Department could not immediately be reached. The industry has warned that possible tariffs of up to 25 percent on millions of imported cars and parts would add thousands of dollars to vehicle costs and potentially devastate the U.S economy by slashing jobs. Administration officials have said tariff threats on autos are a way to win concessions from Japan and the EU. Last year, Trump agreed not to impose tariffs as long as talks with the two trading partners were proceeding in a productive manner. "We believe the imposition of higher import tariffs on automotive products under Section 232 and the likely retaliatory tariffs against U.S. auto exports would undermine - and not help - the economic and employment contributions that FCA, US, Ford Motor Company and General Motors make to the U.S. economy," said former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, the president of the American Automotive Policy Council. Some Republican lawmakers have also said they share the industry's concerns. In a statement issued on Monday, Republican Congresswoman Jackie Walorski said she fears the Commerce Department's report could "set the stage for costly tariffs on cars and auto parts." "President Trump is right to seek a level playing field for American businesses and workers, but the best way to do that is with a scalpel, not an axe," she added.