Fwd 4dr Lt W/2lt New Suv Automatic 2.4l L4 Dir Dohc 16v Tungsten Metallic on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is your new-car warranty good at the race track?

We've all heard the horror stories. Your buddy knows a girl that was dating a guy whose best friend's brother once broke his brand-new, recently purchased performance car while making runs at a drag strip or laps at a track day, and the manufacturer wouldn't cover the repair under warranty. True story? Urban legend? Complete crap? Yes, no, maybe. One thing's for sure: Automotive warranties have always come with caveats. In 1908, an ad in the Trenton Evening Times clearly stated: "All Ford Cars Guaranteed for One Year." Although it changed over time, by 1925 the Ford New Car Guarantee only covered 90 days on material and 30 days on labor, and it clearly stated that that there was "No guarantee whatever on Fan Belts, Glass, Bulbs, Wiring, Transmission, Bands, Hose Connections, Commutator Shells, Rollers, Spark Plugs or Gaskets." Whether or not Ol' Henry would pay to fix your Model T if you broke it shaving a tenth off your lap time at the local board track seems to be lost to history. We're guessing no. But what about today? Do new-car warranties in 2017 cover cars when they are driven on race tracks? We researched the warranties of 14 auto brands to find out, and the answer is yes, no, maybe, depending on the brand, in some cases the model, and whether or not your car is modified from stock. Acura has been out of the high-performance car game for a number of years, but jumps back into the party in 2017 with its hybrid-powered $173,000 NSX supercar. And Acura's warranty, as well as Honda's, clearly states that it does not cover "the use of the vehicle in competition or racing events." View 33 Photos So we asked Sage Marie, Senior Manager of Public Relations for Honda and Acura. "If the car is stock, the warranty covers it on a track just as it does on the street. No question," he told us. "However, if the car is modified, say with slick tires or other components that would put higher stresses on the vehicle's parts and systems, then we would have to investigate the circumstances further." Marie went on to say the same would be true for any Acura model or Honda vehicle, including the new 2017 Honda Civic Si. This became a common theme. Chevrolet actually started this practice with the fifth-generation Camaro on the high-performance ZL1 and Z/28 models.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.