2005 Ford Taurus Sel 3.0l V6 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The USPS needs 180,000 new delivery vehicles, automakers gearing up to bid

Winning the New York City Taxi of Tomorrow tender was a huge prize for Nissan, even though the company is still working through the process of claiming its prize. The United States Postal Service has begun the process to take bids for a new delivery vehicle to replace the all-too-familiar Grumman Long Life Vehicle, and that will be a much larger plum for the automaker who wins it, perhaps worth more than six billion dollars. The Grumman LLV is an aluminum body covering a Chevrolet S-10 pickup chassis and General Motors' Iron Duke four-cylinder engine. The USPS bought them from 1987 to 1994, and the 163,000 of them still in service are a monumental drain on postal resources: they get roughly ten miles to the gallon instead of the quoted 16 mpg, drink up more than $530 million in fuel each year, and their constant repair needs like the balky sliding door and leaky windshields have led the service to increase the annual maintenance budget from $100 million to $500 million. A seat belt is about as modern as it gets for safety technology, and the USPS says that assuming things stay the same, it can't afford to run them beyond 2017. Last year it put out two triage requests for proposals seeking 10,000 new chassis and drivetrains for the Grumman and 10,000 new vehicles. The LLV is also too small for the modern mail system in which package delivery is growing and letter delivery is declining. The service says it doesn't have a fixed idea of the ideal "next-generation delivery vehicles," but it listed a number of requirements in its initial request and is open to any proposal. Carriers have some suggestions, though, saying they want better cupholders, sun visors that they can stuff letters behind, a driver's compartment free of slits that can swallow mail, and a backup camera. The request for information sent to automakers pegs the tender at 180,000 vehicles that would cost between $25,000 and $35,000 apiece, and it will hold a conference on February 18 to answer questions about the contract. GM is the only domestic maker to avow an interest, while Ford and Fiat-Chrysler have remained cagey. Yet with a possible $6.3 billion up for grabs and some new vans for sale that would be advertised on every block in the country, we have a feeling everyone will be listening closely come February 18. We also have a feeling the LeMons series is going to be flooded with Grummans come 2017. News Source: Wall Street Journal, Automotive News - sub.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Which is more fuel efficient, driving with a pickup's tailgate up or down?

Thanks to the smoke wand in the wind tunnel, you can actually see the difference in our video.
Should you drive with your pickup truck's tailgate up or down? It's an age-old controversy that's divided drivers for decades. Traditionalists will swear you should leave the tailgate down. Makes sense, right? It would seem to let the air flow more cleanly over the body and through the bed. But there's also a school of thought that argues trucks are designed to look and operate in a specific manner, and modern design techniques can help channel the airflow properly. So don't mess with all of that: Leave the tailgate up.