1988 Chevy S10 Show Truck on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Hurst Edition Trans Am proves the Screaming Chicken will rise from the ashes

It seems the Pontiac Trans Am steadfastly refuses to die. Ever since Chevrolet was granted a retrofied Camaro to compete with the Ford Mustang, Pontiac lovers have lamented the loss of this 1970s icon. And, looking at the Hurst Edition from Trans Am Depot, shown here at the 2012 SEMA Show, may explain what all the fuss is about.
It's not going to appeal to everyone's muscle-car tastes, but there's certainly room for a brash-and-bold black-and-gold Special Edition in many a Trans Am lover's garage. After all, if you want the keys to a custom pony car, you'll certainly get noticed in this one. If this scheme isn't your bag,, you can alternatively order your Hurst Edition in white and gold or silver and black. Oh, and don't forget a color-coordinated Screaming Chicken on the hood.
No matter which way you choose to go, your inner Burt Reynolds will appreciate the Eibach suspension kit, forged wheels with Pirelli PZero tires, functional shaker hood, fender air extractors, rear spoiler and, of course, a Hurst shifter inside. The interior is emblazoned with all manner of special touches, including a Hurst dash plate and T/A stitching on the Katzkin two-tone leather seats.

Meet the Greenest and Meanest vehicles of 2016

If you've been keeping track, you won't be surprised with the number one entry in this year's list of greenest cars from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). In fact, the top three spots on the 2016 list are all the same as they were in 2015. After that, things get interesting. For one thing, this is the first Greenest list that doesn't have any purely internal combustion engine powertrain on it. Hybrids, yes, but if you want to be one of the top 12 greenest cars this year, you'd better have some sort of electric angle. ACEEE says that the conventional, gas-powered Smart Fortwo and Chevrolet Spark just missed the cut. In a statement, ACEEE lead vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan said, "The 2016 scores are in, and plug-in electric vehicles are outpacing all other vehicle offerings in terms of environmental friendliness." Like last year, one of the noticeable vehicles missing from the green list is the Tesla Model S. One reason? ACEEE takes curb weight into account (lighter is better), and the Model S is a heavy beast. The ACEEE doesn't just look at the clean side of the ledger. It also puts out a "meanest" list. These are the vehicles that pollute the most, not only from their tailpipes, but also any pollution created during the entire manufacturing process, from mining the raw materials to the energy used to produce the vehicle at the factory. The entire list, from greenest to meanest, is done using a "cradle to grave" analysis. You can see how the ACEEE determines its rankings here, explore the entire greenest cars site here, or click through our galleries to see which vehicles are extra green (above) or extra mean (below) this year. 12: Mercedes-Benz GL550 4MATIC View 12 Photos More Electric Cars than Ever on Greenest Vehicles List Electric Vehicles Nab 9 out of Top 12 Spots in ACEEE's Environmental Vehicle Rankings Washington, DC: Despite a tumultuous year for the automotive industry, manufacturers have continued to offer exciting technology options for a growing vehicle market. Today at greenercars.org, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released its 19th annual comprehensive environmental ratings for vehicles. The following vehicles comprise the Greenest List for 2016: Greenest Score 1. Mercedes-Benz Smart ForTwo Electric Drive Convertible / Coupe 63 2. Chevrolet Spark EV 63 3. Fiat 500E 62 4. Toyota Prius Eco 61 5. Volkswagen E-Golf 61 6. Nissan Leaf S / Leaf SV 61 7. Kia Soul Electric 59 8.