1956 Ford F100 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Wards names its 2015 10 Best Interiors list

Wards Automotive has named the winners of its 10 Best Interior awards, covering a wide but affordable array of vehicles. Where last year's list contained two six-figure vehicles, including the $372,800 Rolls-Royce Wraith, this year's is, well, a whole lot more reasonable. The publication lists the Mercedes-Benz C400 at $65,000 (which seems off), making it the most expensive vehicle here. That said, we'd argue that the entire C-Class line deserves to make this year's list, owing to its varied and high-quality selection of materials. The other vehicle to break the $60,000 mark, meanwhile, is the $60,675 Ford F-150 King Ranch, which has 327,000 pounds of leather lining its interior. Only one other German car, the BMW i3, and one other pickup truck, the GMC Canyon, managed to make this year's list. Here's the full list of this year's winners: 2014 BMW i3 ($52,550) 2015 Chrysler 300C Platinum ($51,175) 2015 Ford F-150 King Ranch ($60,675) 2015 GMC Canyon SLT ($40,465) 2015 Honda Fit EX-L ($21,590) 2015 Jeep Renegade Limited ($33,205) 2015 Kia Sedona SXL ($43,295) 2016 Mazda6 Grand Touring ($33,395) 2015 Mercedes C400 ($65,000) 2015 Nissan Murano SL ($41,905) See what we mean about the mainstream vehicles? Not only is there a distinct lack of luxury brands, it's the price of some of the vehicles that surprise. The Honda Fit, Jeep Renegade and Mazda6 are very reasonably priced, especially when you compare Wards price with the starting price. The Renegade Limited starts at less than $25,000, the Mazda at less than $22K and the Fit at under $16,000. Head over to Wards for a more detailed explanation of why each vehicle won. Featured Gallery 2015 Ward's Automotive 10 Best Interiors View 10 Photos News Source: Wards Automotive BMW Chrysler Ford GMC Honda Jeep Kia Mazda Mercedes-Benz Nissan Truck Crossover Hatchback Sedan nissan murano gmc canyon Interior jeep renegade WardsAuto kia sedona wards 10 best interiors mercedes c400

GM already raising prices on 2014 Silverado and Sierra pickups

General Motors must be pretty pleased with sales of its two newest pickups, the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado, as it's announced price hikes for both models, as part of a planned price tweak.
Prices will be bumped by as much as $1,500, although weirdly, they'll be offset by as much as $1,500 in cash-back offers through the end of October. Fox Business reports that GM spokesman Jim Cain said of the price hike, "With the sell down of the '13 models nearly complete, this price adjustment was planned and is a normal part of business."
The move, as Fox is quick to point out, is an interesting one, as sales of the twin pickups struggled last month relative to the Ford F-Series, while both of GM's crosstown competitors have been aggressively undercutting Silverado and Sierra prices. The F-150 starts at $24,070 and the Ram 1500 comes in at $23,600, not counting any cash on the hood. A base Silverado, meanwhile, retails at $25,575.

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.