We Finance!! 2009 Ford F-250 Lariat 4x4 Powerstroke Diesel Sync Bluetooth 1 Own on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cosworth double-feature is XCar's a drool-worthy look back

While American fans of Ford performance cars in the '80s and early '90s were loving the 5.0 Mustang, Taurus SHO and, for those who wanted to be a little different, the Merkur XR4Ti, British fans of the Blue Oval were getting their own unique take on speed. The Sierra RS Cosworth (which was similar but not identical to the aforementioned Merkur) and later Escort RS Cosworth were the stuff of dreams with huge wings, hood vents and big power for their time and class. XCar Films aims to find out whether it is little more than nostalgia that makes these classics famous or it really is their legitimate performance. Thanks to its Formula One and racing success, Cosworth was already a well-established performance name in the UK by the time it began selling tuned engines to Ford for the Sierra and Escort. The Sierra RS Cosworth hit the scene in 1986 with a turbocharged, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with 204 horsepower and rear-wheel drive. Its huge wing at the back signaled it immediately as something special, and it proved to be a performance powerhouse on and off the track. When it was retired, Ford replaced it with the Escort RS Cosworth that used an upgraded version of the same engine with 217 hp, all-wheel drive and an even bigger rear wing to net yet more racing victories. XCar really gets into the spirit of the time, opening the video with the lo-fi grain of '80s and '90s TV, but to find out whether the Cossies stand up to modern scrutiny, you have to watch the video below. Stay tuned until the end to enjoy them at their best with some vintage motorsports footage. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Foreign automakers pay from $38 to $65 per hour to non-union workers

As leaders for the United Auto Workers gather in Detroit for their Special Convention on Collective Bargaining to work out the negotiating stance for this year's new labor agreements with the Detroit 3 automakers, what they most want to do is figure out how to eliminate the two-tier wage scale. However, the lower Tier 2 wage has allowed the domestic automakers to reduce their labor costs, hire more workers, and compete better with their import competition. As it stands, per-hour labor rates including benefits are $58 at General Motors, $57 at Ford, and $48 at Fiat-Chrysler – a reflection of FCA's much greater number of Tier 2 workers. The Center for Automotive Research released a study of labor rates (including benefits) that put numbers to what the imports pay: Mercedes-Benz pays the most, at an average of $65 per hour, Volkswagen pays the least, at $38 per hour, and BMW is just a hair above that at $39 per hour. Among the Detroit competitors, Honda workers earn an average of $49 per hour, at Toyota it's $48 per hour, Nissan is $42 per hour, and Hyundai-Kia pays $41 per hour. The lower import wages are aided by their greater use of temporary workers compared to the domestics. Automotive News says the ten-dollar gap between those foreign camakers and the domestics turns out to about an extra $250 per car in labor, which adds up quickly when you're pumping out many millions of cars. That $250-per-car number is one that, come negotiating time, the Detroit 3 will want to reduce, as the UAW is trying to raise both Tier 1 and Tier 2 wages. Another wrinkle is that the domestic carmakers are considering the wide adoption of a third wage level lower than Tier 2. Some workers who do minor tasks like assembling parts trays kits and battery packs already make less than Tier 2, but the UAW will be quite wary about cementing yet another wage scale at the bottom of the system while it's trying to fight a bigger battle at the top. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req., BloombergImage Credit: AP Photo/Erik Schelzig Earnings/Financials UAW/Unions BMW Chevrolet Fiat Ford GM Honda Hyundai Kia Mercedes-Benz Nissan Toyota Volkswagen labor wages collective bargaining labor costs