2010 Ford F-150 Svt Raptor 6.2l!! Raptor Luxury Pkg,extremely Low Miles,loaded!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Are we about to see a real SUV revival?

Now that the marketplace has been oversaturated with cute-utes, crossovers, and CUV coupes, are we about to see a resurgence of real, honest-to-God SUVs? Ummm... maybe. The stars seem to be aligning in that direction, at least that's the sense I'm getting. We know an all-new Jeep Wrangler is only a few auto shows away; and that Jeep is about to introduce a new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk for 2017, in the same rugged spirit of the successful Cherokee and Renegade Trailhawks. Ford has hinted at a neo-Bronco, after showing the concept above in 2014 to wet the mouths of all those Duck Dynasty-types out there. And, and... wait for it... I recently learned that Subaru sent a questionnaire out to some Forester owners asking if they might be interested in an off-road package if it were offered. The items listed were pretty hardcore, serious stuff, such as: integrated tow/recovery hooks, additional ground clearance, more rugged wheels, skid plates, altimeter, front-view off-road camera, improved approach and departure angles, advanced differentials, Inclinometer, full-size spare tire, upgraded off-road suspension components, more aggressive tires, off-road driving mode (engine, transmission, throttle, and steering settings), more rugged styling, low-range gearing, and a more advanced traction management system. Folks that's not my wish list (well, actually it is), but those are words from Subaru, asking if that's what customers would like to see. Need proof? Go to the SubaruForester.org website. It's in a discussion there. So... no promises or guarantees here, and feel free to call me a rumormonger if you like; but the next few years could prove very interesting for those who actually do go off road. If this pans out, remember, you read it here first. Related Video: Image Credit: Ford Ford Jeep Subaru Crossover SUV Off-Road Vehicles open road

Ford, Toyota clean up in Best Car For The Money Awards

The U.S. News Best Cars for the Money Awards picks winners by looking at the average transaction price, five-year total cost of ownership, the regard a car has from the automotive press, reliability figures from J.D. Power and Associates and safety data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The result, according to the magazine, is "the best combination of critical acclaim and long-term value."
Ford nabbed six of the 21 categories that received awards this year, the Focus, Fusion, Fusion Hybrid, Taurus, Escape and Edge getting trophies. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion sub-brands took another five, the Tacoma and Tundra owning the two categories given to pickup trucks. The other ten awards were split between Honda with three, Buick with two, and one each for Subaru, BMW, Hyundai, Chevrolet and Mazda.
Follow the link to see all the winners and read about why they were chosen.

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.