2002 Ford F-250 Super Duty Lariat Crew Cab Pickup 4-door 6.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Next SVT Mustang may axe Shelby name, go naturally aspirated

Following our first glimpse at the 2015 Ford Mustang out on the road, the fine folks at Road and Track have divulged some details on what the Blue Oval's next pony might have in store. We've already seen that the car will get some very sleek, Evos-inspired design cues, and an independent rear suspension is indeed in store. These new details, however, concern the muscle car's beating heart.
For starters, the base Ford coupe is expected to carry on with V6 power, likely from the same 3.7-liter unit found in today's car. From there, R&T says the next step up will be a four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, likely displacing 2.3 liters, putting out as much as 350 horsepower. Of course, a Mustang wouldn't be a Mustang without V8 thrust, and R&T states that the 5.0-liter Coyote V8 will continue on into the 2015 car, making something like 450 horsepower.
But it's at the high end of the Mustang range where things will, reportedly, get very, very interesting. Road & Track claims that the top-shelf 'Stang will likely lose the supercharger from its engine, producing a metric crap-ton of naturally aspirated grunt instead. Additionally, the SVT-fettled Mustang will likely be dropping its Shelby moniker, in favor of "a name you're familiar with," according to the magazine (you know, like, Cobra).

Editors' Picks February 2021 | Ford F-150, Genesis GV80, Mazda CX-30 and more

If we’ve driven and reviewed it, thereÂ’s an Autoblog Rating for it. ItÂ’s been over two years since we launched a new rating system to help you evaluate cars at a glance. We tweaked and improved it along the way and quickly arrived at a consistent process for giving each and every car on sale today a fair score. Cars that are exemplary or stand out in their respective segments get EditorsÂ’ Pick status. Those are the ones weÂ’d recommend to our friends, family and anybody whoÂ’s curious and asks the question. Every car we rate gets a score from 1 to 10, making it easy for you to tell if itÂ’s a car worth pursuing and possibly purchasing. YouÂ’ll find the scores of previously-rated cars attached toward the top of our written reviews. For example, the Bronco SportÂ’s rating can be found here. The Acura TLXÂ’s rating is in this post, and the Nissan RogueÂ’s rating is right here. There are hundreds of examples to be found. The above examples make up the most natural ways to find the Autoblog rating when researching for your next car, but starting today, weÂ’re going to begin calling out each new set of Editors' Picks per month in their own breakout stories. This will put the newest and most recently refreshed cars on sale on a pedestal for you to see which ones are worth your while. WeÂ’ll typically rate anywhere between 5-10 new cars per month, so you can count on just a select few from those to make this list. Expect to see this recurring ratings post each month going forward, and read on for FebruaryÂ’s EditorsÂ’ Picks.   2021 Genesis GV80 2021 Genesis GV80 View 18 Photos Quick take: The stylish GV80 offers useful safety features, compelling design and sporty dynamics to push it near the top of the segment. Genesis takes risks with this aggressive crossover, and the result is a luxurious vehicle that is rewarding to drive. Score: 8.5 What it competes with: Lincoln Aviator, Volvo XC90, BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX Pros: Beautiful design, good road manners, awesome value Cons: Small third row and cargo space, less comfortable standard suspension  From the editors: Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore — “The GV80 is a hugely important vehicle for Genesis. It makes a style statement, has an elegant interior and is a compelling all-round execution. It looks like a Bentley, and I give Genesis props for taking some risks with the GV80 and largely pulling it all off.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.