1929 Ford Model A on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 small cars lay an egg in latest Consumer Reports reliability study

Consumer Reports has released its Annual Auto Reliability Survey and the results are, in a word, interesting. While we already covered the score-damaging effects of infotainment systems, there's another big angle to the data that's getting some attention - the utterly dismal scores of the Detroit Three's small car offerings.
The turbocharged Dodge Dart and Chevrolet Cruze, as well as the Ford Fiesta were their respective brands' lowest-scoring models, a stat that's made worse by the fact that the American automakers finished 25th, 21st and 23rd, respectively.
That's not acceptable for The Detroit Free Press' auto critic, Mark Phelan, who has penned a scathing critique of the D3's small car reliability scores, arguing that GM, Ford and Chrysler are "out of excuses."

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.

2015 Ford Mustang renders reveal look of the real thing

This is, according to the pony-car obsessed kids over at Mustang6G.com, the closest, most accurate rendering of the new, 2015 Ford Mustang to date. Artis Chazcron used a combination of Ford CAD images and information from assorted spy shots to assemble a fairly handsome car, albeit one that conforms to the tired cliché of being more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Now, it's very important to note that these are still speculative renders, and that they only represent the base car - that could explain the lack of the Mustang's vestigial side scoops, along with other, newer styling cues that Mustang6G seems to think will arrive on production models. Those items include a new, double-bubble roof, although the Mustang aficionados claim that even if it were present, it'd barely be visible from these angles.
The front end is pretty spot on, compared to what we've seen from earlier spy shots, while the tail, with its interesting light design is something new. The louvered taillights look quite different from the current version, obviously, though Mustang has gone the whimsical route with taillights before. Also, note the new rear diffuser uses an integrated reverse light and rear foglight, the latter of which is required for sale in Europe.