2020 Ford Ecosport Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford GT gets sexy shape and EcoBoost power [w/videos]

American automakers make vehicles of all shapes and sizes, but the one thing they almost invariably share in common is their front-engine layout. Niche offerings from the likes of SSC, Saleen and Vector (and the almost anecdotal Pontiac Fiero) aside, the most notable exception has been the Ford GT. And now it's back. Launched on the floor of the 2015 Detroit Auto Show, the new Ford GT picks up where the last one left off the better part of a decade ago – similarly taking its cues from the original, Le Mans-winning GT40, but in a less retro, more modern form. Instead of the atmospheric V8 in the original or the supercharged one in the retro revival, the new GT packs a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 nestled in the middle of its wheelbase and driving "more than 600 horsepower" to the rear wheels. Although Ford hasn't revealed the specific output or performance figures, it says the engine – derived from its Daytona Prototype unit and mated to a seven-speed DCT – is its most powerful production EcoBoost ever. Fortunately it's got carbon-ceramic brakes to keep it all in check, packed into 20-inch wheels wearing Michelin Pilot Super Sport Cup 2 rubber. The discs aren't all that's made from carbon on the new Ford GT, though: it's built around a carbon monocoque with structural carbon-fiber body panels, but with aluminum sub-frames front and back. Ford designed the new GT with a narrower canopy than its predecessors, cutting the frontal aerodynamic profile and tapering towards the back. It's also equipped with active aero elements including an active rear wing. Upwards swinging doors ought to make ingress and egress easier to and from the cockpit that's fitted with fixed seats, adjustable pedals and F1-style steering wheel and a fully digital instrument cluster. The new GT is set to enter production next year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the GT40's famous 1-2-3 finish at the 1966 running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans. By the time it does, we're sure Ford will let us know just how fast America's newest supercar will be.

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.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.