Diesel 7.3l Low Miles Banks Conversion Grille Guard Trailer Tow 4x4 Bedliner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Does the new 2015 Ford Mustang have a burnout control system?

Whether it's lane departure warning, blind-spot monitoring or automatic emergency braking, most of the electronic systems we see emerging on new vehicles focus on safety. But there are some there just for enthusiasts. We're talking about systems like automatic throttle blipping for perfect downshifts, or launch control to get that textbook acceleration from a standstill. But the latest system could prove just the opposite of the latter.
Although it has given us most of the details, Ford is still keeping certain elements of its new Mustang secret. But emerging reports may have the skinny on one system which Ford is trying is darnedest to keep under its hat for the time being. That, according to unnamed sources cited by Motor Authority, is burnout control.
The system is reportedly designed to help novices execute the perfect smokey burnout - sort of like launch control, but specifically the opposite. The system could, according to elaborative speculation, lock the front brakes while spooling up the engine to optimal revolutions before dumping (or indicating the driver to do dump) the clutch. A cloud of tire smoke and a long pair of skid marks would then ensue.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.

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.