1998 Ford Crown Victoria 4-door 4.6l Police Interceptor on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Here's what the UAW will be angling for in next year's contract negotiations

The United Auto Workers union is about to enter a new round of negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, and this time, the focus is on the end of the two-tier wage system. Introduced in 2007, the two-tier wage system was enacted to allow General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to categorize its hourly employees under two categories: Tier 1 for veteran employees with full rights and benefits, and Tier 2 for short-term or entry-level employees compensated under a different schedule. The idea was that the system would permit the automakers to invest more in their plants and hire new employees as part of their respective recovery plans without being saddled with all the costs associated with hiring full-time employees. Now that the automakers are (more or less) back on their proverbial feet, however, the UAW wants to see an end to the two-tier system, and will likely make that a center-point of its negotiations next year to replace the current arrangement that is scheduled to end in September 2015. Not all members of the UAW will necessarily be interested in ending the two-tier system, however. According to The Detroit News, some Tier 1 workers may be more interested in negotiating a raise in their hourly rate – something which they haven't received in almost a decade. Tier 2 workers, meanwhile, may be more motivated to keep the tiered system in place, as their arrangement includes provisions for profit-sharing payments that have seen the automakers pay out billions to so-called short-term employees in lump-sum payments. Reconciling the two competing demands from two categories of union members and presenting a united front in negotiations may prove the biggest challenge for the UAW's new president, Dennis Williams. And with the right to strike – something which was suspended during the last round of negotiations in 2011 – the union has a bigger bargaining chip in its pocket.

2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 vs. 2019 Ram 1500 vs. 2018 Ford F-150: How they compare

The full-size pickup truck market is seriously hot right now. Both Ram and Chevrolet have introduced completely redesigned trucks, the 2019 Ram 1500 and the 2019 Chevy Silverado, and as the companies slowly roll each one out, more and more information comes to light. We've put together this comparison post to help you keep track of all the features and specifications of each of these new models, along with the updated 2018 Ford F-150. Among the stats we'll take a look at are engines, power, fuel economy, trim levels, weight and more. Weight savings Both the 2019 Ram 1500 and 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 have gone on a diet for the new model year, similar to the one the F-150 went on in 2015. The Silverado is the weight-loss leader, having shed 450 pounds when comparing quad-cab V8 models. The Ram 1500 lost 225 pounds compared to the current truck. Both trucks achieve their weight loss in part due to the use of aluminum parts. On the Silverado, the hood, doors, and tailgate are aluminum, while on the Ram, just the hood and tailgate are aluminum on the body. Compare that to the F-150, which uses aluminum for all exterior body panels for a total weight loss of up to 732 pounds, which makes the aluminum-intensive F-150 the weight-loss leader. View 160 Photos Engines and transmissions There's only a bit of overlap in powertrains on the Ram 1500 and Chevy Silverado. Each has a V8 for the top engine. The Ram's is a 5.7-liter Hemi V8 making 395 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque. The Silverado will once again use a 6.2-liter V8 as its range topper with the same 420 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque as the current model. Both of these V8s boast some extra fuel saving technology. The Chevy's 6.2-liter (and some 5.3-liters) comes with the company's latest cylinder deactivation system that can shut off any or nearly all of the eight cylinders. The Ram's V8 boasts an optional 48-volt mild-hybrid system that, in addition to likely helping fuel economy, can provide up to 130 pound-feet of torque right off the line. With the Ram, fuel economy sees an improvement of 2 mpg in the city and combined ratings for 17 and 19 respectively. Highway fuel economy improves by 1 mpg to 23 with two-wheel drive and 22 with four-wheel drive. The Silverado's 6.2-liter V8 only improves city fuel economy by 1 mpg to 16, and actually loses 1 mpg on the highway. The new 5.3-liter engine with the fancy cylinder deactivation does see an improvement over the simpler version.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.