1964 Ford Galaxie 500 Xl 6.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

These are 2014's best-selling cars and trucks

Now that 2014 is no more than a set of numbers on spreadsheets, at last, the grist mill gets its first real load to chew on. The number one selling vehicle in America last year was the Ford F-Series, a fact that should surprise you only if your family name is Van Winkle and your naps tend to last 38 years, which is how long the Ford pickup has ruled our buying landscape. Even though series sales were down 1.3 percent, it still racked up 753,851 units. That's 2,065.3 sales per day, every day, all year. The Chevrolet Silverado, up 10.3 percent for the year, was still a daylight second at 529,755 units. The cab-and-bed love continued into third place with the Ram 1500-3500 trucks, gaining 23.6-percent year-on-year to clock 439,789 units. The robust turnout at The Bighorn and Jeep helped Fiat-Chrysler increase its sales by 16 percent, past the two-million mark. Our number one car? The Toyota Camry, staying in first place with a 4.9-percent sales boost to 428,606 sales, trailed again by the Honda Accord at number five with 388,374 sales. Accord sales rose six percent, and if it's any consolation to Honda for coming in second - not that it needs one - it is the only manufacturer to have three vehicles in the top ten. The rest of the list: the Nissan Altima with 335,644 sales (+4.7%), the Honda CR-V with 355,019 (+10.2%), the Toyota Corolla/Matrix combo with 339,498 (+5.9%), the Honda Civic with 325,981 (-3.1%), and the Ford Fusion with 306,860 sales (+2.9%). Total sales for the year were up six percent to 16.5 million vehicles, a volume not seen since 2006, aided by a strong December that was up by 11 percent year-on-year. Ford was the top selling brand overall but sales didn't really budge from 2013, while Subaru rocketed up 21 percent to finish with 513,693 sales. At the precious end, BMW, Audi, Porsche and Land Rover all had record years, and Kelley Blue Book thinks we could be looking at 17 million sales for the next two or three years. Looks like it's time to start making hay again... Featured Gallery Best-selling vehicles of 2014 View 10 Photos News Source: Detroit News, Associated Press Auto News Chevrolet Ford Honda Nissan RAM Toyota Car Buying Truck Sedan sales

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.