1999 Ford Escort Lx Sedan 4-door 2.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

Is that the Ford GT Le Mans racer in the background of this Forza video?

Shortly after the reveal of the new Ford GT in Detroit a couple of weeks ago, Microsoft announced that it was putting the new American supercar on the cover of the upcoming sixth installment of the Forza Motorsport video game series. Now it has put out a video of the process of digitizing Dearborn's latest. Whether you're into Detroit steel (or carbon fiber and aluminum in this case), exotic supercars or video games, the video is worth a watch in and of itself. But our eyes were focused on something else. In the background of one shot (around the 1:49 mark) you can see a design board with renderings of what looks to be the rumored racing version of the GT – complete with reshaped air intakes, deeper side sills, a bigger rear wing and a central rear fin like you'd find on the latest LMP1 racing prototypes. It wouldn't be the first time we've caught wind of the prospect of the Blue Oval's new supercar going racing. We first heard of the plans last October, further reinforced in December with reports of the new GT coming to Detroit. And as we reported just a couple of weeks ago following the supercar's reveal, a return to Le Mans could be in the cards – which would be fortuitous timing, since next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the original GT40 scoring its landmark 1-2-3 finish in the 24-hour race.

2020 Ford Escape hybrids vs other crossover fuel sippers: How they compare on paper

Along with a new generation of Escape, Ford also reintroduced the world to the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid. And if that weren't enough, Ford is adding a plug-in hybrid version. This is a sign of the times: people are more crossover crazy than ever, but are also seeking ways to use less fuel, whether it's for environmental or purely money-motivated reasons. The Ford hybrids aren't the only fuel-efficient compact crossovers on the market. They will be going head-to-head with conventional hybrids including the 2019 Kia Niro, 2019 Nissan Rogue Hybrid and 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. There are other plug-in hybrids including the 2019 Subaru Crosstrek PHEV, 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and the plug-in version of the 2019 Kia Niro. There are even a couple diesels in the form of the 2019 Chevy Equinox and 2019 GMC Terrain. So we've rounded up the details on all these crossovers to see who leads and lags in criteria such as power, fuel efficiency, space and price. Check out all their details below. 2019 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid View 68 Photos How do their engines and fuel economy compare? Conventional Hybrids and Diesels Let's face it, if you're buying one of these crossovers, one of the things that matters most to you is just how frugal with fuel they are. We'll start off with the conventional hybrids and diesels, and the clear victor is the Kia Niro, which in base FE trim, manages to hit 50 mpg combined. This is thanks to it sharing its powertrain with the Hyundai Ioniq, the Hyundai equivalent of the Toyota Prius. Buyers should take note that only the FE returns such high fuel economy. The LX and EX drop to 49 mpg, and the S Touring and Touring get 43. Even then, the least efficient Niro is the most efficient of the normal hybrids and diesels. It is nearly the least powerful, though, with 139 horsepower. Just behind it is the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. It delivers 40 mpg combined, and it has an ace up its sleeve: it comes standard with all-wheel drive. Every other vehicle in this powertrain group has front drive standard, and the Niro isn't available with all-wheel drive at all. If that weren't enough, the RAV4 Hybrid also boasts the most power at 219 horses. While we can't say anything about Escape Hybrid fuel economy, we do know that it will make 198 horsepower, which is close to the class-leading RAV4. The least powerful of these is the Equinox and Terrain, and they return the worst fuel economy at 32 mpg.