2023 Ford Lariat Ultimate Lariat on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Ford Explorer order guide revealed

The configurator for the refreshed 2016 Ford Explorer is already up and running. However, if you're the type of person that really likes to dig into the nitty-gritty of a vehicle's features, then the order guide for this latest Ford is now available (pictured right). While the documents don't list fuel economy, engine power or pricing, they give a precise idea of all of the differences separating each of the five trim levels: Base, XLT, Limited, Sport and Platinum. In addition to the tweaked styling across the board, even the Base model now features a rearview camera with a washer. There are also three new colors available: Shadow Black, Blue Jeans Metallic and Guard Metallic. Base, XLT and Limited trims are available with either a 3.5-liter V6 or new, optional 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder. All of them are mated to a six-speed automatic, and all-wheel drive is optional with either engine. The new Platinum trim basically loads the Explorer up with everything imaginable. Power comes from the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, matched with all-wheel drive. Plus, the Platinum trim gets standard luxuries like a dual-pane moonroof, adaptive cruise control, a premium sound system and Ford's super-soft Nirvana Leather covering the seats. There are also some new tech features throughout the rest of the lineup. For example, an updated auto-parking system is also available on the Limited but comes standard on the Platinum. Furthermore, a 180-degree front camera and second-row USB charging are optional on the Sport but are standard on the Limited and Platinum. Check out the gallery for even more of the changes. Featured Gallery 2016 Ford Explorer View 30 Photos Related Gallery 2016 Ford Explorer Order Guide View 20 Photos News Source: FordTip: P Design/Style Ford Car Buying SUV order guide

Official USPS Muscle Cars stamps coming to a mailbox near you

As much as our digital lives have cut down on our trips to the post office, there are still times that sending "snail mail" is necessary. With us car lovers in mind and philately in their hearts, the good folks at the United States Postal Service will introduce a new stamp design called "Muscle Cars" starting on February 22.
Designed by artist Tom Fritz, the new collection of stamps consist of five classic muscle cars: 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona, 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS, 1967 Shelby GT-500, 1966 Pontiac GTO and 1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda. In addition to just the stamps, the USPS is also commemorating the new series with plenty of collectable memorabilia. Previous car-related stamps include 50s Sporty Cars from 2005 and 50s Fins and Chrome from 2008.

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.